Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — PAYMASTER-GENERAL

Public Participation in Government

Mr. Marten: asked the Paymaster-General if she will make a statement on progress with the participation of the individual in the decision-making processes of national democracy.

Mr. Barnes: asked the Paymaster-General if she will make a statement on her policy regarding public participation in Government as distinct from decentralisation on devolution.

The Paymaster-General (Mrs. Judith Hart): I have no statement on policy to make at present, nor do I expect to be in a position to make one for some little time. I am at present gathering information together about existing facilities for public involvement in the development and administration of public policy at various levels, and how they work in practice. I have also commissioned some research on the subject. I shall naturally wish to keep the House fully informed of future progress.

Mr. Marten: On the basis of charity beginning at home, will the Minister press her colleagues to make available to Members of Parliament all the documents submitted to the National Economic Development Council for the preparation and discussion of the so-called second National Plan, so that at least Members of Parliament will feel that they are participating in national decision-making?

Mrs. Hart: Frankly, I think that this is more a question for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State

for Economic Affairs, but I am sure that they will note carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Dalyell: What research has been commissioned?

Mrs. Hart: I have commissioned Mr. Ioan Davies of the University of Essex to gather together existing practice and machinery, because this is obviously the first stage for making an assessment about what further developments are required.

Problems of Youth

Mr. Marten: asked the Paymaster-General if she will make a statement on progress in dealing with the problems of youth.

Mrs. Hart: The important thing is to assess the needs. I have started by examining the material provided by the Youth Enquiry under Lord Longford; and I have also begun the practice of arranging to meet groups of young people in the course of my visits round the country, to hear what they want to say. But I must stress that I regard my responsibilities with regard to young people as being primarily an aspect of the more general question of participation.

Mr. Marten: As the Prime Minister told me in the House that the right hon. Lady was to concern herself with all aspects of youth—and I think that she will recall that statement—could she say, for example, how she divides her responsibilities with those of the Ministry of Education over student unrest?

Mrs. Hart: Particular questions relating to students within universities are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and for the university authorities, as was made clear in the debate in the House the week before last. I am concerned, however, with students as young people as distinct from their particular student rôle.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: As the right hon. Lady regards this primarily as a matter for participation, will she accept from this side of the House that the form of participation which the people of this country want more than anything else is a General Election?

Mrs. Hart: I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman has had quite the experience of hearing from the young people that I have had so far. I find that young people generally are concerned to be regarded as people with rights and responsibilities and with respect for many of the ideals that they share in common.

Constitutional Commission

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the Paymaster-General by what machinery she will submit evidence to the proposed Commission on the Constitution and its sub-committees.

Mrs. Hart: This depends to some extent on the wishes of the Commission as to the nature and content of the evidence they require.

Mr. Campbell: Has the right hon. Lady any intention of contributing information or advice to the Commission when it is eventually set up, or is she going to wait until she is invited to do so, if she is, by the Commission?

Mrs. Hart: I think that that depends on what the Commission believe will be most helpful to it.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend take care to ensure that the machinery referred to in this Question operates in the widest possible way, to make certain that a great selection of witnesses with experience of Scottish needs, present and future, are available for the Commission?

Mrs. Hart: I am sure that when the Commission is finally appointed it will wish to carry out its work in such a way that it is able to take full account of all the views of those in Scotland and Wales, as well as in England.

Scotland (Devolution)

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the Paymaster-General what consultations she has had in Scotland on questions of devolution.

Mrs. Hart: I have had no formal consultations.

Mr. Campbell: As the Prime Minister indicated, though in very vague terms, that this was one of the Paymaster-General's main subjects, can the right

hon. Lady tell the House when she intends to consult anyone in Scotland?

Mrs. Hart: I think the hon. Gentleman will be very well aware that I work in the closest possible co-operation with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales. If formal consultations seem helpful at any stage, we shall have them. I think the hon. Gentleman will also agree that the Reports of the Wheatley and Maud Commissions will clearly be of great benefit to us when they appear in assisting our consideration of this issue.

Consumer Consultation

Mr. Molloy: asked the Paymaster-General if she is satisfied with the present arrangements for the operation of consumer consultative machinery; and if she will make a statement.

Mrs. Hart: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to consumer consultation in general, rather than to the arrangements within any particular field which may be the responsibility of one or other of my right hon. Friends. My inquiries so far suggest that there are wide variations both in the adequacy of the machinery and in the extent to which it is used effectively both by consumers and by those consulting them. I intend to study and discuss these further.

Mr. Molloy: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the Adjournment debate which took place last Thursday and ask her whether she is prepared to consider ways of increasing public awareness of this service, especially at local level?

Mrs. Hart: I regard the communication of effective information as essential to the successful operation of any form of consumer consultative machinery and I shall certainly bear in mind the points made by my hon. Friend during the Adjournment debate to which he referred.

Student Unrest

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Paymaster-General whether, in the light of her work on matters concerning youth, she will inquire into and seek a solution of student unrest.

Mrs. Hart: I certainly intend to find out all I can about the worries


and aspirations of young people in general. But questions about students as such are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science; and we shall also have the benefit of the views of the Select Committee which is currently inquiring into this mutter.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the epithets used by my right hon. Friend's colleague the Minister for Education and Science, are we likely to get much useful information in that fashion? In view of the absence of specific and factual information on the cause of student unrest, as my right hon. Friend is responsible for looking after youth, would it not be desirable for her to consult the representatives of student organisations?

Mrs. Hart: I have, not only since my present appointment as Paymaster-General but over the last year, had a number of opportunities to talk to representatives of student organisations. My impression, which is shared by my right right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Minister of State, as they made clear in the debate a week last Wednesday, is that there is undoubtedly a genuine and widespread desire among students to take rather more of a share in the management of various aspects of universities but as the Minister of State herself made clear in that debate these, inevitably, are matters that take some time to arrange, but we must give high regard to the efforts that the universities are making to meet the problem.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is the right hon. Lady aware that those who are from time to time engaged in university affairs rather deplored the efforts by the Secretary of State to earn the plaudits of the Alf Garnetts of this world by his rather extreme statements in that debate? Does the right hon. Lady accept that the views put to her by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) have a good deal of substance in them, and that it is important that we should gain the confidence of these people if any progress is to be made?

Mrs. Hart: The hon. Member is being extremely unfair in interpreting my right hon. Friend's remarks in that way. He was clearly differentiating between the

objectives of a great many students and the methols which a very few of them are using from time to time. This is the distinction that we need to make, while recognising that this is a matter of genuine concern to the great majority of students.

Mr. Rankin: Does my right hon Friend agree that an inquiry of this nature cannot be conducted on two separate fronts? Ought it not to be coordinated?

Mrs. Hart: Yes. My hon. Friend will understand that on all matters in which I have some responsibility but in respect of which executive responsibilities are carried out by some of my right hon. Friends there is complete co-ordination and complete discussion at every stage.

Mr. Hordern: Will the right hon. Lady, in her consultations with youth organisations, also consult the Young Conservatives, if necessary in the privacy of her own home?

Mrs. Hart: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that one of the most enjoyable opportunities I have had recently in meeting a large gathering of young people was when I attended a function organised by the British Youth Council, at which Conservative, Liberal and Socialist students were all fully represented.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Non-Industrial Civil Servants

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what further steps he is taking to reduce the number of non-industrial civil servants.

Mrs. Hart: We continue to keep Departmental manpower requirements under regular and detailed scrutiny. The special reviews of Civil Service manning, under the leadership of Sir Robert Bellinger, announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last year, are going forward, but Sir Robert and his colleagues must be permitted time to develop their views.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is not the real way to secure a reduction to reduce the functions of government? Can the right


hon. Lady say what action has been taken in that respect?

Mrs. Hart: That raises general questions of public and, in particular, social policy. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will expect me to answer on that count in reply to his question.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many non-industrial civil servants are employed at the latest available date; and how this figure compares with the numbers employed a year ago.

Mr. David Howell: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what proposals he has for reducing departmental staff during 1969; and on what basis these will be reported to the House of Commons.

Mrs. Hart: I would refer the right hon. Member to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) on 24th January. A statement to the House on the size of the non-industrial Civil Service in 1969–70 will be made during the next few weeks.—[Vol. 776, c. 202.]

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does not that answer reflect the unhappy consequences of a lack of urgency apparent in the right hon. Lady's previous answer?

Mrs. Hart: Not in the least. As I think the right hon. Gentleman is aware from the statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the debate on the Fulton Report before Christmas, we are perfectly aware of the need to fulfil the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend just over a year ago. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that when the statement comes it will bear out our expectations.

Mr. Howell: Is the right hon. Lady aware that even in the Civil Service Department, which, as far as I can make out, is her Department, people are now publicly urging that there should be a much more radical approach to the whole business of control of staff and allocation of tasks and functions? Will the Minister look into the matter and report back to the House?

Mrs. Hart: One of the main purposes of the new Civil Service Department is

to assist in implementing some of the Fulton recommendations that bore on this point. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Fulton Committee had a great many things to say which bear on it. It is a matter for the civil servants in the Civil Service Department to assist in the kind of planning that will enable those expectations to be realised.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the right hon. Lady aware that since 1964 the number of civil servants has gone up by 58,300, and in local government by 323,000? Is she aware that her Answer is nothing but complacent in regard to the reduction proposed?

Mrs. Hart: There is no complacency in this matter. A year ago my right hon. Friend gave a clear undertaking to the House, and this undertaking will be fulfilled. The hon. Gentleman might wish to refresh his memory of the Fulton debate before Christmas, when a number of the background factors were explained for specific increases over the last two or three years, in specific areas, most of which are concerned—and this is the important point to bear in mind—with giving a better public service to people throughout the social services.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Long answers mean fewer Questions.

Mr. Molloy: Can my right hon. Friend explain how she reconciles the demands made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, acting as constituency Members, for all sorts of things in the social service, with the fact that they are not prepared to provide the staff to carry out their own demands?

Mrs. Hart: I think that my hon. Friend points to a quality of the Opposition which we have observed frequently over the last two months in relation to the financial commitments they wish the Government to take on as well as the manpower commitments.

Unified Grading Structure

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the pilot study of the unified grading structure.

Mrs. Hart: At present, a good deal of essential information, including studies of the practice in large United Kingdom


organisations and in the Civil Service of other countries, is being collected, and discussions on the form of further studies are taking place; I cannot yet say what form these will take.

Mr. Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this part of the Fulton Report has been called the core of it? Will she make sure that this is proceeded with as speedily as possible, since an impression has been given that parts of the Civil Service are not too happy about the implementation of this part of the Report which was accepted so wholeheartedly by the Prime Minister?

Mrs. Hart: I assure my hon. Friend—and I agree that this is a vital part of the recommendations—that work on this is moving ahead. We are building up the investigating team, but, as the Fulton Committee was the first to realise, it is one of the lengthier recommendations, because it is one of the more fundamental ones, and it will take time to implement.

Sir E. Boyle: Will the right hon. Lady recognise that we realise that this is a recommendation which must take time fully to implement, but is it not a fact that it will be most unfortunate if the impression is given here of any dragging of feet, and that some beginning on the implementation of the Report ought to happen really soon?

Mrs. Hart: It is beginning. As I said, the first step is to collect a lot of information. The second is to set up an investigating team to see what is going to be the best way to do this. It is going ahead. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no dragging of feet on this matter.

Recruitment, Training and Career Development

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what action has been taken to integrate as closely as possible recruitment, training and career development within the Civil Service.

Mrs. Hart: The main action taken, as the Fulton Report recommended, has been to integrate the Civil Service Commission with the new Civil Service Department set up on 1st November, 1968.

Mr. Sheldon: My right hon. Friend will be aware that questions of recruitment, training and promotion are interdependent? Will she try to ensure that in practice there is this inter-dependence at the earliest possible time?

Mrs. Hart: I am sure that, as my hon. Friend says, this is part of the centre of the problem. I assure my hon. Friend that we are taking full account of that.

Administrative Savings

Mr. David Howell: asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will set up a regular system for reporting to the House of Commons on savings being achieved in the administrative structure of government, consequently upon the implementation of the main proposals of the Fulton Committee Report.

Mrs. Hart: My right hon. Friend announced on 21st November, 1968, that there will be regular progress reports, in connection with the Fulton recommendations, and more widely. The exact form, content and frequency of publication of these reports is still under consideration, but they will provide an opportunity to cover the kind of points raised by the hon. Member. I hope, however, he will be content to await the first report; savings, where possible, take time and effort to develop.

Mr. Howell: I recognise that, but will the right hon. Lady recognise that the prevailing assumption that the costs of Government activity must inevitably go on rising is quite unacceptable, and will she take urgent steps to see that the Departments have cost-reduction targets and savings targets, and will she ensure that reports on these are made to the House so that we know that administrative efficiency is going forward?

Mrs. Hart: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the first Report. In terms of ceilings on costs, what the hon. Gentleman said as being unacceptable does not seem to be shared by some of his colleagues opposite, who continually demand fresh expenditure by the Government.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the progress reports include the industrial Civil Service?

Mrs. Hart: They will include the question of the industrial Civil Service


in so far as it seems to be completely relevant. I think it more likely that the Reports will be concerned primarily with the non-industrial Civil Service.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the right hon. Lady explain why the Government are always exhorting industries and institutions to prune staffs, including even the Bank of England, by bringing in McKinsey's, an American company, to do this, and yet they do nothing to prune staffs within their own Department?

Mrs. Hart: I do not think the hon. Gentleman can be aware of the very considerable step which was taken by the Government last year in making a commitment that the ceiling of the Civil Service set in the Financial Secretary's Memorandum of last March would be strictly adhered to during the financial year 1968–69. That was a great step forward in recognising the matter.

ICL 1905 Computers

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what are the average hours per week for which ICL 1905 Government computers are utilised.

Mrs. Hart: There are three ICL 1905 E computers in central Government, one for processing traffic tickets for the Metropolitan Police, another for operational research work within the Ministry of Defence, and a third for scientific work at the Ministry of Public Building and Works Building Research Station. The current average weekly hours of operation are 50, 40 and 48 hours respectively, with target operating hours of 100, 80 and 80 to be achieved by November, December and March of next year, respectively.

Mr. Allason: Is the right hon. Lady aware that many commercial firms operate their computers on the basis of three or four shifts? As the Minister's target amounts to double-shift working, is not this a grave waste of the use of computers?

Mrs. Hart: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it necessarily takes time to build up the full operating use of computers. The initial hours of operation, and the target operation hours, will fall to be reconsidered and extended as it becomes possible, and as the demand for the use of the computers increases.

Fulton Report

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what further steps have been taken to implement the recommendations of the Fulton Report; and whether he will make a statement.

Mrs. Hart: The House was given a comprehensive review of progress in the consideration and implementation of the Fulton Report during the debate on 21st November last. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on that occasion, the Civil Service Department will regularly publish reports as further progress is made. These will of course be made available to hon. Members.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: With regard to the abolition of the class system in the Civil Service, which was referred to in that debate, has the Minister made any plan for implementing the suggestion by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that a list should be compiled of the high fliers and those of exceptional ability in order to ensure that full use will be made of the talent within the service?

Mrs. Hart: The hon. Member will remember that part of our discussion during that debate—the point was made by hon. Members on this side of the House, too—concerned the question of high fliers and the importance of recognising them whenever they appear on the scene. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that point is very much in mind in the work that is going on.

Pension Rights

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what steps he will take to ensure the protection of pension rights of men and of women leaving the Civil Service.

Mrs. Hart: The protection of pension rights of those leaving the Civil Service is being considered in the light of the proposals in Chapter 6 of the White Paper: National Superannuation and Social Insurance and of the recommendations of the Fulton Committee.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: When can we expect legislation on this urgent matter?

Mrs. Hart: The White Paper makes clear the Government's intention, which is that there shall be legislation covering most aspects of the White Paper, if not all of them, during the course of next Session. It is important that the committee which is at present reviewing the Civil Service pension scheme in the light of the White Paper should be able to come to proper conclusions on the basis of the most careful consideration of this aspect.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: May I reinforce the urgency of this matter? Since the White Paper is not due to be implemented until April, 1972, is there not a case for the Government's taking a lead in this matter—in terms of their position as managers of an occupational pension scheme—and providing for transferability or preservation much earlier than that?

Mrs. Hart: We have already set a very good example. There is complete freedom of movement within the public sector and, for certain grades, classes and ages, outside the public sector. It is in the full awareness of the importance of the preservation of pension rights that the proposals in the White Paper have been put forward, but there are many details to be meshed into the Civil Service superannuation scheme.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether it is intended that men leaving the Civil Service before the age of 50 should be permitted to take a proportion of their pension rights as a lump sum.

Mrs. Hart: Any established civil servant who has 10 years' reckonable service and who leaves for other employment which is approved for the purpose may have his accrued pension benefits frozen and paid to him on eventual retirement. This arrangement covers the lump sum as well as the pension itself.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how many people have been accorded the benefit of this; concession?

Mrs. Hart: I am afraid that I should need separate notice of that question, but I shall gladly supply the hon. Gentleman with the information later.

Late Entry

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what he is doing to expand late entry to the Civil Service.

Mrs. Hart: Widespread opportunities for this exist already and changes are made as required. But this recommendation by the Fulton Committee needs to be examined together with their other major proposals. The study of these involves examining the qualities and qualifications needed for different levels of work. This will provide the basis for decisions on levels and ages of recruitment taking into account our agreement with the Committee that the Service should remain one which most people enter for a full career.

Mr. Dalyell: When do the Government hope to make a statement on their discussions with the I.P.C.S. on this matter, especially to reinforce the under-staffing in the Inland Revenue?

Mrs. Hart: That is a slightly separate question, but on all these matters we are having complete and full discussions and consultations with the staff side. The specific problem here is that there are a number of detailed matters to be considered in the context of working towards the Fulton Committee's objectives.

Head of the Legal Service

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will expand the rôle of the Treasury Solicitor, and create a Head of the Legal Service.

Mrs. Hart: This proposal and the Fulton Committee's other recommendations about the management of Civil Service legal work and staffs are being studied in consultation with the Treasury Solicitor and the Departments concerned.

Mr. Dalyell: Is this recommendation accepted in principle?

Mrs. Hart: Our view is that we need to consider the recommendations as a whole and then to decide what exactly the functions of the Head of the Legal Service would be.

Sir E. Boyle: Did not the Fulton Commitee put forward a very strong case for attaching more importance to the work of the legal aspects of the Civil Service?


Is the right hon. Lady aware that her answers might lead some people to feel that the Civil Service Department ought to try to make haste a little less slowly than at present with some of the suggestions that have been made?

Mrs. Hart: The right hon. Gentleman should not draw that conclusion from my answers. We are now at the stage when, necessarily, a tremendous amount of work is going on within the Civil Service Department on all the Fulton Committee recommendations that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated were accepted. It is very detailed work and it will inevitably be some little time before, on a number of these recommendations, we are able to report final conclusions to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Rhodesia

Mr. Moonman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will propose at the United Nations a further list of sanctions, including a blockade of Lourenço Marques, to be imposed on Southern Rhodesia.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Maurice Foley): No, Sir. We believe that Security Council Resolution No. 253 of 29th May, 1968, went to the practicable limit in present conditions.

Mr. Moonman: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is growing concern and, possibly, a likelihood of further international embarrassment if we do not take one or other of these steps—to make sanctions work and work well, or stop the whole nonsense?

Mr. Foley: The question of breaches of mandatory sanctions imposed by the Security Council is, of course, a matter for the Security Council. My hon. Fries policy on the implementation of recent Communiqué the efforts to be made by all to make sanctions work. This is what we are trying to do.

Sir F. Bennett: Since the Government's action in this matter is taken, self-confessedly, from a moral standpoint, was the hon. Gentleman's Answer given on moral grounds or on practical grounds?

Mr. Foley: It is hard to differentiate, but there certainly are both moral and practical grounds.

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will discuss with the Portuguese Government proposals to supervise and enforce sanctions against Rhodesia in Mozambique.

Mr. Foley: No, Sir. This is a matter for the Security Council.

Mr. Fraser: Does my hon. Friend not agree that it in intolerable that Portugal, our oldest ally, a partner inside E.F.T.A. and inside N.A.T.O., should be circumventing sanctions? Would he press Portugal to have a United Nations presence in Mozambique to supervise goods going out of Lourenço Marques and the railway line from South Africa to Rhodesia through Mozambique?

Mr. Foley: I would suggest to my hon. Friend, as I did earlier, that breaches of mandatory sanctions are a matter for the Security Council. Portugal is aware of our views on this subject.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: In view of the contacts which exist between our Portuguese allies and the Rhodesian Government, have her Majesty's Government considered making use of Portugal's good offices to bring forward a settlement? Will the hon. Gentleman dissociate himself entirely from the gunboat mentality expressed by some of his hon. Friends?

Mr. Foley: As I have said, we have constant consultations with friendly Governments. Clearly, this is a matter which has been raised.

Anguilla (British Administrator)

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will seek to arrange that Mr. Anthony Lee or another British Administrator remains in Anguilla and continues to work for an accommodation between the people of Anguilla and other peoples of the St. Kitts Nevis-Anguilla group.

Mr. Foley: I would refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply that


my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) on 5th February.—[Vol. 777, c. 127–9.]

Sir Knox Cunningham: Since Her Majesty's Government are responsible for the foreign affairs of Anguilla, would the hon. Gentleman not take steps to see that communications are kept open between the people of Anguilla and foreign countries, and particularly that Her Majesty's mail is not stopped?

Mr. Foley: I would not deny that we are responsible for foreign affairs, but this issue is an internal affair. We have taken steps to maintain consultations and links with the people of Anguilla.

Mr. Marten: Why did the Government reject the proposition made in December that a Minister should go out to Anguilla and St. Kitts to try to resolve this difficulty? He could have gone in the Recess. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of us on this side are becoming increasingly critical of the Government's handling of this situation and of the consequences which are about to follow as the result of their inaction? What action will they take?

Mr. Foley: The possibilities, of course, for further mediation are limited by the constitutional position. I am glad to say that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will be visiting the Associated States of the Eastern Caribbean later this month and will take up these matters. As to whether he will visit Anguilla, that will depend on his discussions on the spot. Mr. Lee will be there and involved with him.

Mr. Braine: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that aid to this small community has been cut off? Is this not somewhat unfair, bearing in mind the nature of the dispute in the first place? What positive steps are being taken by the Government to end this unhappy affair?

Mr. Foley: On the latter point, I have said that my hon. Friend will be visiting the area later this month. As to the development aid, it is allocated to the State of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla as a whole by Parliament, and the consent of

the State Government is, therefore, necessary for part of it to be given direct to Anguilla. The State Government's consent was obtained during the interim settlement period but was withdrawn with the termination of the interim settlement.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Because of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter again.

Council of Europe (Recommendations)

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Common-wealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy on the implementation of recent recommendations of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Frederick Mulley): The recommendations passed at the recent session of the Assembly will be considered in due course by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

Mr. Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend and the Foreign Office please come off the fence on this issue and stop equivocating? Is he not aware that the Council of Europe overwhelmingly called for suspension, as did the Labour Party Conference and the majority of back benchers on this side? Will he stop equivocating and say that he will support the call for suspension?

Mr. Mulley: The Question relates to the total recommendations, of which I think there were twelve, passed recently by the Assembly of the Council of Europe, and the appropriate procedure is to put them to the Council of Ministers. There is another Question on the Paper specifically on the recommendation about Greece and I should not, at this stage, anticipate that reply.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will change his mind, since I was going to ask him, would he not recommend the Greek Government, as the best course, to make a voluntary withdrawal, not from the


Council, but from the Assembly, to which, in any case, as they have no Parliament, they can send no Parliamentary delegation?

Mr. Mulley: I understand that no Parliamentary representatives from Greece have sought to take seats in the Assembly. The withdrawal, of course, is one of the points in the Assembly recommendation which will be considered in due course by the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Would my right hon. Friend agree that as the delegation to the Assembly is composed from both sides of this House, and that, with possibly just one abstention, the delegates voted as a whole for the suspension of Greece, this strengthens the Government's hand? Would he take firm action on it?

Mr. Mulley: There is no doubt that the overwhelming vote—94 for, 11 against, with 20 abstentions—was a very vigorous expression of view by the Assembly, which I imagine that all Ministers, when they deliberate on this, will bear very much in mind.

Mr. Peel: Will the Minister take note that some of us on this side think that on this issue the Government for once have not been equivocating but have made their position fairly clear, and that there was not an overwhelming vote for the suspension of Greece? I trust that he will look very carefully at the recommendation adopted by the Council of Europe. The matter is in the hands of the Council of Ministers, and I trust that they will use their common sense.

Mr. Mulley: I hope that the hon. Gentleman's adverse comments were not addressed to me, since I studiously sought to avoid expressing views about the suspension or the resolution.

Nigeria

Mr. Hordern: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will convene an international conference to discuss the Nigerian situation.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now convene an international conference to discuss the Nigerian situation.

Mr. Foley: We have always made clear our desire to help in any way we can. We have taken an active part in a number of efforts to try to achieve a settlement, one of which was during the recent Commonwealth conference. Initiatives have also been taken by others, all so far without success. I do not think that this suggestion would bring any of these efforts nearer success.

Mr. Hordern: Is it not clear that the only outcome of the Government's policy will be the continued escalation in the supply of arms to both sides? Therefore, will not the right hon. Gentleman arrange for an early meeting with both the French and the Russian Governments so as to stop this terrible aggression?

Mr. Foley: We should be very clear that we cannot dictate the course of events in Nigeria, that we gave up responsibility for Nigeria at the time of granting its independence, and that it will help no one, least of all the Nigerians themselves, if we pretend that we can solve the dispute for them.

Mr. Allaun: Why do not the Government at least attempt to secure a joint ban? Secondly, will the Under-Secretary ascertain the Soviet position? I understand that, whilst opposed to unilateral action, they are prepared to play if others play.

Mr. Foley: There is a further Question on the Order Paper dealing with arms and I should prefer to take that up when that Question is dealt with.
On the question of initiatives, one has to recognise, as U Thant said only last week, that this is a matter for Nigeria and Africa. This is not to say that we in this House and the nation as a whole are not deeply concerned and anxious to do whatever we can, but the fact is that so far we have not been successful, although this does not deter us from continuing our efforts for peace.

Mr. Braine: Bearing in mind the continuing international concern which is widely shared in this country for the plight of civilians in the war-stricken areas, cannot the hon. Gentleman say whether the present position still is that the Federal Nigerian Government are ready to allow daily flights into the Ibo heartland but that Colonel Ojukwu is not?

Mr. Foley: Yes; this is, in fact, the precise position. The need to get relief in quantity, it is clear—and this need will increase over the months—means that daily flights or a surface route must be opened up. So far, on military and stategic grounds, it has not been possible to suggest anything to either side which either would accept.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Will my hon. Friend consider that while he and other members of the Government constantly say that this is a matter for the Africans to settle, if this war is fought to a finish with a massive supply of arms from the Great Powers it will be an utterly disastrous precedent for Africa as a whole?

Mr. Foley: I would not like to give the impression that nothing is being done. Only last week the French-speaking African States at the Conference in Kinshasa appointed two Heads of State, one to visit Colonel Ojukwu and one to visit General Gowon. They will be reporting back to the Conference of O.A.U. Ministers at the end of the month. The Emperor's Consultative Committee is due to meet at the end of the month.

Middle East

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Russian Ambassador regarding the Middle East.

Mr. Mulley: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has just visited the United Arab Republic, the Sudan and Morocco. His visit has not been discussed with the Soviet Ambassador.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether, during his right hon. Friend's discussions with the Russian Ambassador in January, the Russian Ambassador argued that the Government of Israel should withdraw from the occupied territories in the Middle East? Can he also tell us whether the Foreign Secretary suggested to the Russian Government that that was a matter for the Government which had itself withdrawn from occupation of Czechoslovakia?

Mr. Mulley: As the House knows, the Soviet Ambassador called on my right

hon. Friend on 2nd January and made a communication about the Middle East. Later in the month my right hon. Friend gave our reply to the charge d'affaires. Many of the Russian proposals are constructive and we asked for clarification on a number of issues, but it would be wrong in this diplomatic exchange between Governments for the full content of them to be published without the consent of the other party.

Mr. Shinwell: My right hon. Friend has referred to the Minister's visit to the Middle East. But his right hon. Friend the Minister of State only visited the Arab countries. Why did his visit exclude Israel? How is it possible for the Government to make up their mind about a solution of the Middle East problem if Ministers direct their attention only to the Arab countries and avoid Israel?

Mr. Mulley: As has been explained in answer to Questions, my right hon. Friend's visit was planned a long time ago. It was not in the context of the current four-Power talks. It was in order to give him first-hand acquaintance with some of the countries for which he is responsible in the Department. On the question of visits to Israel, as was said last week, this is under consideration but there are no plans at present.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in the Middle East.

Mr. Foley: All concerned have now replied to the proposal of the French Government that a meeting of the representatives on the Security Council of the United States, the Soviet Union, France and the United Kingdom should be held to discuss ways and means of achieving a settlement in the Middle East. We expect that preliminary discussions to prepare the ground for such a meeting, in the first instance on a bilateral basis, will shortly begin.

Mr. Shinwell: Does my hon. Friend regard that as a statement? Are we to understand that the Government have no definite policy about the Middle East and how to solve the problem between the Israelis and the Arab States? Or are they waiting until the American cat


jumps? Is my hon. Friend aware that the conditions stated by the Soviet Union will not be acceptable to either the Government or the people of Israel?

Mr. Foley: I can understand my right hon. Friend's impatience; indeed, his indignation. I would have thought that what I have said and what is happening represent a considerable step forward from the previous impasse. However, it would be unhelpful for us at this stage to comment on the lines of a settlement or on specific questions of substance.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the Under-Secretary aware that there are still a number of Arab leaders who are hoping and working for a political settlement along the lines of the Security Council resolution but that their position is being made rapidly impossible by the failure to make progress on the resolution, and, in particular, by the insistence of the Israeli Government on permanently incorporating large areas of conquered Arab territory?

Mr. Shinwell: What nonsense!

Mr. Mayhew: Will he try to reach agreement with the four Powers, first on a timetable for implementing the resolution—

Mr. Shinwell: My hon. Friend should be ashamed of himself.

Mr. Mayhew: —and thereafter perhaps on agreement to withdraw arms supplies from any countries which decline to carry out that timetable?

Mr. Foley: I should emphasise that the policy of Her Majesty's Government is that there cannot be a settlement without agreement among the parties. The object of the four Powers meeting is to seek ways and means of furthering the work of Dr. Jarring to isolate and define the areas of agreement and disagreement, and to proceed in this fashion.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Can my hon. Friend assure us that the Secretary of State himself will go to these very important meetings?

Mr. Foley: I cannot give that assurance.

Mr. John Mendelson: Will my hon. Friend accept that there will be wide-

spread support for the insistence by the Government and by the United States Government that these four-Power discussions should be carried on under the aegis of the United Nations? Will he further accept that there is confidence that the Government will see to it that the security interests of all Middle-Eastern States will be fully safeguarded?

Mr. Crawshaw: Would not my hon. Friend agree that some of the heat might be taken out of the situation in the Middle East if when aggression were committed by either side we showed equal concern, not just when it happened to be Israel attacking Arab countries?

Mr. Foley: We are always concerned about anything which is harmful to the cause of peace and we equally condemn anyone who takes such initiatives.

European Economic Community

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy regarding proposals for tariff reductions between existing members of the European Community and countries which have applied for membership.

Mr. Mulley: No such proposals have been made. We are prepared to consider any proposals put to us in this field provided they come from the Community as a whole, and as long as they are linked with our objective of full membership of the European Communities.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is it not regrettable that the Government should have so comported themselves that the French Foreign Minister was able to say that it was pointless to discuss tariff reductions in view of the British Government's disinterest in the matter? Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether this disinterest stems from orders from the United States Government or from fears about the balance of payments, or both?

Mr. Mulley: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that our position is based not on either of the grounds that he has mentioned but on the fact that we want to become members of the European


Community. This is the view of this House and it has been the official policy of all three major parties represented here.
The reason why we have made it clear in these terms is that tariff reductions must, as the E.F.T.A. countries agreed at their last meeting in Vienna, comply with international obligations, and they could only comply with those obligations and meet our needs if they were directly linked with our obligation to join the Community.

Mr. Jay: If the E.E.C. countries are really willing to discuss reductions in industrial tariffs between the E.E.C. and E.F.T.A. without agricultural conditions, surely we ought wholeheartedly to support this? Why are the Government hesitating?

Mr. Mulley: This is all hypothetical. There are no such proposals. We shall be very happy to consider the proposals, if they meet our conditions, when they come along.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Is not the position this, that the French Government have made certain proposals, the German Government have made other proposals, that the two are slightly different, but that nothing has come from the Six as a whole?

Mr. Mulley: There have been no such proposals from the Six. We should be very happy to see them coming along.

Commonwealth and E.F.T.A.

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will consider initialing a conference between British Commonwealth and European Free Trade Association countries.

Mr. Mulley: No, Sir. I am not aware of any widespread wish, either among Commonwealth countries or members of the European Free Trade Association, for such a conference.

Mr. Molloy: I hope my right hon. Friend is aware that there is such a desire now. Is he aware that many of us feel that it is about time the Government gave up chasing this will-o-the-wisp of the Common Market? They seem to

be obsessed by this mirage. If they have not thought of having a conference between people who have been so close to us over the years like the E.F.T.A. countries and the British Commonwealth of nations, it is about time they did.

Mr. Mulley: I do not think we need a conference for it to be known that we have very great support from our Commonwealth friends and our friends in E.F.T.A. The purpose of such a conference would be to bring the economic activities of the two sets of Governments together. Although the recent meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers discussed the world economic situation, there was no pressure from any source for a conference of this kind.

Mr. Marten: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the proposition put forward in this Question would have the implications of a much wider and much more imaginative trading area than anything the Government are thinking about at the moment?

Mr. Mulley: It is a matter of opinion. The economic interest and state of development of Commonwealth countries is very varied indeed. Secondly, it would not be for this country to take the initiative in calling a Commonwealth conference. That procedure is well-established as one for the Secretary-General after consultation with the Commonwealth Governments.

N.A.T.O. (Malta)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what further economic action he proposes to associate Malta more closely with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Mulley: An open-ended group, in which the United Kingdom Permanent Representative plays his part, was set up in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation last year, under the chairmanship of the Secretary-General, to further consultations between the Alliance and Malta. Malta's relations with the Alliance are a matter for member Governments collectively and the Malta Government.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: As a step towards this, in view of the friendly co-operation of Malta in the past, would it be possible for Her Majesty's Government to extend an invitation to them to join the European Free Trade Area?

Mr. Mulley: I do not see that questions about the Free Trade Area arise from a Question about N.A.T.O.

Western European Union (Luxembourg Meeting)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further proposals to create institutionalised relations between the countries of the European Economic Community and the United Kingdom were agreed at the recent Western European Union meeting at Luxembourg.

Mr. Mulley: Six delegations agreed that before taking any decisions on certain foreign policy questions they will consult with their Western European Union partners to further the adoption of positions agreed and harmonised to the fullest possible extent. The French delegation said that it would make its views known later.
We regard this outcome as opening the way to a co-ordinated European position on foreign policy questions. Her Majesty's Government intend to do all we can to ensure progress in this direction.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Might not the proposal that N.A.T.O. ambassadors be used as a standing group serve this purpose?

Mr. Mulley: I do not think that the ambassadors within N.A.T.O. would necessarily be appropriate, because N.A.T.O. is not a strictly European organisation. The machinery proposed is that of the Council of Western European Union, which is most appropriate for this purpose. As hon. Members will have noted, my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has asked for early consultations in this area on the whole question of the Middle East.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: In view of the great importance of this new departure, will my right hon. Friend publish a White Paper explaining exactly what was agreed and the trend of the discussion that took place?

Mr. Mulley: It would be a little early to publish a White Paper, but I will certainly pass on my right hon. Friend's suggestion to my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. I very much hope that we can make progress, but it is as yet too early to say until the new machinery has been firmly established.

Hong Kong (Public Order Ordinance)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have now been made in the Hong Kong Public Order Ordinance regarding the extent to which the burden of proof is placed on the authorities.

Mr. Foley: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary gave to him on 19th December, 1968.—[Vol. 775, c. 451.]

Mr. Allaun: Did not the reply say that certain changes were under consideration? Was this a pious hope or is there to be any amendment to ensure that the burden of truth lies with the authorities?

Mr. Foley: I assure my hon. Friend that there is no pious hope. It is a reality. The question of time has been considered in examining the Ordinance and bringing it up to date in terms of the representations which have been made to us so that we may ensure that the matter is got right and is amended adequately.

Mr. Rankin: Can my hon. Friend say how many people in Hong Kong are still in gaol without any charge having been preferred against them?

Mr. Foley: Not without notice.

Mr. A. Royle: Will the Minister resist pressure for the Hong Kong Government to alter or amend the Emergency Regulations until the Governor is satisfied that the situation is good enough to enable him to make such alterations?

Mr. Foley: We are talking about two distinct matters. There are some elements of the Emergency Regulations included in the Ordinance. Under examination is the Ordinance itself.

Solomon Islands (Government House)

Mr. Albu: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when building of the new Government House in the Solomon Islands was first approved; and what it will cost.

Mr. Mulley: In July 1966. The estimated total cost, as given by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs, to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) on 17th January 1968, was $A300,000.—[Vol. 756, c. 617.] A more recent estimate from information available here is $A328,000. This includes offices and furnishings and approximately $A63,000 for staff housing.

Mr. Albu: Is not this a rather scandalous waste of money considering the desperately poverty-stricken state of the territory and the fact that a traditional, if rather old, Government House already exists there?

Mr. Mulley: I cannot accept that it is a waste of money because the replacement of the present Government House, which was a temporary wartime construction, has been delayed for many years on financial grounds and to give priority to other developments. I believe that it is essential now that we should construct a new building for the High Commissioner and his staff.

Mr. Fisher: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this Government House was practically falling to bits when I was there six years ago and that its replacement is long overdue.

Mr. Mulley: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's assurance on this point.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the assistance of the Duncan Review Committee leading to any review of building operations at present being undertaken?

Mr. Mulley: The Duncan Review Committee is taking into account accommodation as well as services provided. However, we will not get its report for another three months.

Council of Europe (Greece)

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what instructions he has now given to the United Kingdom representative at the Council of Europe on the question of the suspension of Greece from membership of the council.

Mr. Mulley: No instructions have yet been issued. We shall decide our attitude in consultation with our allies.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is it not time that Her Majesty's Government made up their mind and stated their view on this issue, bearing in mind the content of the resolution passed on this subject at the Council of Europe's last session?

Mr. Mulley: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is not simply a case of approving or disapproving of a resolution or recommendation. The recommendation in questions asks the Council of Ministers, after passing on the content of the resolution to the Greek Government, to take appropriate action. It also calls on the Greek Government to take action before coming to this request to the Council of Ministers. Since the Council of Ministers is not likely to meet until May and since this matter will not be considered further until next month in Strasbourg, there is time for consultation before these meetings, and it therefore seems right to us that that should happen.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the strong feelings expressed at the Consultative Assembly in Strasbourg by people representing a very wide range of political opinion in connection with the utter undesirability of Greece remaining a member of a democratic assembly?

Mr. Mulley: The Council of Ministers must consider the recommendations which are put to it by the Assembly. I do not think that my hon. Friend was present at a somewhat earlier stage when I said that there was an overwhelming vote for the recommendation—there were 92 for and 11 against—registered by those participating in the discussions.

Nepal (Gurkha Troops)

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will seek to review the treaty provisions with the State of Nepal regarding recruitment and pension rights of Gurkha troops.

Mr. Foley: No, Sir. The Memorandum of Agreement and associated documents which govern the recruitment and terms of service of the Gurkhas continue to work satisfactorily.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Would the Under-Secretary assure the House that there will be facilities for recruiting, that they will continue into the 'seventies and that the pension rights of retired Gurkhas will in future be safeguarded?

Mr. Foley: Questions relating to recruiting figures and pension rights should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

NOTICE OF MOTION (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order. I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to raise a point of order, of which I have given you notice.
At about 10 minutes to four on Friday I handed to the Table Office an Amendment to the Motion which is the first item on the Order Paper today. The Amendment read:
At end insert:
But notwithstanding the foregoing, the Select Committee shall not meet until after the House shall have appointed a Select Committee to enquire into the allegations made by the right hon. Member for Huyton on September 30th, 1964, concerning which the same right hon. Gentleman pledged

himself to hold a 'full and searching inquiry'.
I understand that the Table Office referred the Amendment to you and that it was rejected on the ground that it was critical of another Member.
I drafted the Amendment carefully to avoid making any comment on whether the allegations made by the right hon. Gentleman, who is presently the Prime Minister, were without foundation. I did not comment on that, and it seemed to me a perfectly proper Amendment, as it was wholly devoid of any implied criticism, to today's substantive Motion, as it is material to the question of the order in which any inquiries should be held, if the House is minded to hold inquiries.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) for letting me know, as soon as I took the Chair today, that he proposed to raise this point of order. I have looked into the matter.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that hon. Members are among the categories of persons whose actions may not be criticised except by substantive Motions. Such a criticism, therefore, cannot be made by way of an Amendment to another Motion. While I agree that the actual words of the Amendment do not contain any explicit criticism of the Prime Minister, when I was shown the Amendment on Friday it seemed to me that the implication of such criticism was inescapable.
I therefore directed that the Amendment should be withheld from the Order Paper, and I understand that a communication to that effect was at once despatched to the hon. Gentleman. There is nothing to prevent him from putting down a Motion criticising any hon. or right hon. Gentleman.

VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY (ALLEGATIONS)

Mr. Speaker: I should like to make two observations before we begin the debate. First, I have not selected any of the Amendments. The first two are in the name of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis):
In line 3, at end insert:
'and the statements made by the hon. Member for West Ham, North, that in London and other large industrial cities approximately 20 per cent. of vehicle owners are at present evading the payment of their vehicle excise duty'.
In line 3, at end insert:
'and the statements made by the hon. Member for West Ham, North, that as a means of preventing the continuing evasion of the excise duty Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer has decided to abolish this means of raising revenue and in his next budget will recoup the same from increasing the petrol duty'.
The second two are in the names of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) and the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison):
In line 9, leave out from second 'place' to 'and' in line 10.
In line 12, at end add:
'That it be an instruction to the Committee that they should conduct all their proceedings in public'.
Secondly, no fewer than 35 hon. and right hon. Gentlemen wish to speak in the two debates which we are to hold today. I therefore urge hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to make their comments reasonably brief.

3.34 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I beg to move,
That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into, and report on, statements made by the hon. Member for South Worcestershire relating to the alleged disclosure of information and documents concerning Vehicle Excise Duty'.
It gives me no pleasure to move the Motion. I deeply regret the circumstances which have made it necessary. I intend, therefore, to take up as little time of the House as possible.
I shall not spend long on the history of the past week or so, which is well

known to hon. Members. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) claimed to have seen documentary proof—what he called "irrefutable evidence"—that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to raise vehicle Excise duty in the forthcoming Budget. On Monday, my right hon. Friend explained in the most categorical terms how such documentary proof could not exist.
In these circumstances, some hon. Members have suggested—as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) did on Thursday—that my right hon. Friend's explanation should simply be accepted as disposing of the allegations once and for all. It would certainly be my hope, and, I believe, the hope of the overwhelming majority of the House, that this should be so. But the fact is that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South has refused to do so.
Instead, the hon. Member repeated his charges and made fresh ones. Beside the two printers who, he claims, showed him secret documents, reporters at a Press conference claim that he said he was given information of a budgetary character by Treasury officials. More generally, he has spoken about print being broken up and directors of printing firms getting together to conceal the truth. But at no stage has he attempted to substantiate his claim to "irrefutable evidence". All he has disclosed is—I think the hon. Member's words were—"obvious tittle-tattle".
Here may I interject that I think that many hon. Members will share my feeling that, if the hon. Gentleman saw prima facie evidence of a Budget leak, it would have been more consonant with the traditions of the House if he had put the facts before my right hon. Friend, or the right hon. Gentleman opposite, rather than use it as a means of personal publicity.
Despite this lack of evidence, there would undoubtedly be those who, if the Government did nothing, would claim that we had something to hide. I have an idea that among that number would be some of those now urging us to drop the inquiry. But even this would not be decisive in considering whether to have an inquiry. All Governments at times have to ignore cheap charges of this sort. Indeed, if all we wanted was a quiet life, that is what we could do in this instance.


I think that the nine-days' wonder would soon be over.
What makes inevitable a further inquiry is the nature of the allegations. Rumours about possible Budget changes are inevitable at this time of year. Open lobbying by interested parties in favour of their particular interests is a natural feature in a democracy. But the hon. Member's allegations do not fall into these categories. They are allegations involving improper behaviour by specific, though unnamed, people.
This is not a question of an over excessive show of dignity by the House, or of the rough-and-tumble of politics. Hon. Members on both sides know that I am not concerned with excessive dignity, nor do I shrink from the rough-and-tumble of politics. But to make such allegations, to refuse to substantiate them or to withdraw them when they are categorically denied, affects the fundamental quality of our public life. Perhaps the hon. Member wants to be able to say, if the Excise duty does not go up in the Budget, "I knew there was nothing in it, but this was the best way to scare them off putting the tax up".
But if this is so it would be a sad reduction in the standard of public conduct if we were to accept that an hon. Member could pursue ends he considers legitimate by making serious unfounded allegations against other people. On the other hand, if the hon. Member has been shown papers purporting to be tax changes, he has been the victim of a hoax or a conspiracy. In either case, the House and the country need to know the truth.
For all these reasons, therefore, the Government feel that an inquiry is needed The fact that it is necessary will bring no pleasure to anyone; but it is essential if we are to maintain our public standards. And so my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on Tuesday the Government's intention to set up an inquiry.
If there has to be an inquiry, the next question is the form it should take. In practice, the choice is narrowed to two—a Select Committee along the lines the Government propose, or a tribunal under the 1921 Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act. There are arguments for

and against either choice. As the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) pointed out on Tuesday, the report of Lord Justice Salmon's Commission in 1966 called attention to defects it saw in Select Committees of Inquiry, and I know that similar criticisms have been made elsewhere.
On the other hand, we must remember that the alternative is a tribunal of inquiry, and that the Salmon Commission said that it was "strongly of the opinion" that these tribunals should
always be confined to matters of vital public importance concerning which there is something in the nature of a nation-wide crisis of confidence
That is from paragraph 27 of the Report. That is not the case here, despite the hon. Gentleman's skill as a publicist. Moreover, to those for whom a Select Committee is a sledge-hammer, a tribunal would be a steam-hammer.
I have also taken the opportunity of rereading a standard reference work on this matter, Professor Keeton's excellent "Trial by Tribunal", which I am sure many hon. Members will have read. He gives full expression to the criticisms of Select Committees. But in his concluding chapter he says, at page 224:
The Tribunal of Inquiry, it is manifest, has grown up as an alternative to the Select Committee of Inquiry for certain types of investigation. It has not replaced procedure by Committee, and it is not difficult to imagine circumstances in which procedure by tribunal would be inappropriate, and in which, therefore, it would be necessary for the House of Commons even today to set up a Committee of Inquiry.
The Government believe that these circumstances face us today.
The central objection to a Select Committee seems to be the expectation that its members will not be able to forget their party affiliations. I believe that fear to be misconceived. It has been largely influenced by the Marconi inquiry of 1912, which, admittedly, brought no credit to this House. But I look upon that case as being an aberration, and not our normal standard. As my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister has pointed out, there have been subsequent Select Committees of inquiry against which this charge cannot be made. My personal experience confirms this.
Although I have been Chairman of the Committee on Privileges for nearly a


year, I have been concerned with a tricky case involving the conduct of an hon. Member. I can say that at no time did party considerations enter into our minds.
Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen with more experience than I will be able to confirm that this is normal, and I confidently expect that this Select Committee will operate in the same way. Indeed, hon. Members will note that the names proposed in the Motion follow the precedent of the Privileges Committee. In a normal Select Committee, the members nominated are such that there is a Government majority in the body of the Committee, apart from the chairman.
For this Committee, as in the Privileges Committee, it is proposed that if the Chairman is drawn from this side of the House there will be an equal balance between the members of the two sides. Furthermore, I suggest that we need only consider the names that are proposed for the Committee to realise that they will approach their task without any regard to party affiliation.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to the terms of reference of the Committee. They are confined to the statements made by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South relating to the alleged disclosure of information and documents concerning vehicle excise duty. As I have said, the necessity for this inquiry arises from allegations of improper behaviour, not from the circulation of rumours.
The Committee will not need, therefore, to attempt to trace to their source the myriad of rumours that have been circulating on this subject. Those concerned with originating such rumours can wrestle with their own consciences. The precision of the terms of the Motion will enable the Committee to concentrate upon the allegations which are at issue, to complete its remit with due despatch, and to resist attempts to sidetrack it into extraneous matters.
Similarly, the appointment of this Committee may stimulate debate on whether the secrecy which traditionally surrounds the Budget is necessary or desirable. Indeed, some Press comment has already touched on this aspect of the matter. This question is certainly one of legitimate public interest, and it may be that the House will wish to consider it at some appropriate time—quietly, and when the

matter is academic. But this, too, will not be an issue for this Committee.
Hon. Members will see that the Motion empowers the Committee itself to decide which of its meetings should be in public. I am sure that we should leave that to the Committee. I cannot, therefore, accept the hon. Member's Amendment, which instructs the Committee that all its meetings, including those when it is drafting its report, should be in public.
On this, perhaps, I could make this observation. Some of the hon. Member's comments—that he would insist on appearing on television after each appearance before the Committee, and that he would insist on the Committee calling as witnesses all those who had written to him—

Sir Gerald Nabarro: Sir Gerald Nabarro (Worcestershire, South) rose—

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member can make his contribution later. He has said a lot outside this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too much."] Some of the hon. Member's comments gave the impression that he is not so much interested in discovering the truth on this matter as in staging a great entertainment or pantomime, with himself as the star performer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I very much hope that his attitude before the Committee will dispel this impression.

Sir G. Nabarro: Sir G. Nabarro rose—

Mr. Peart: Mr. Peart: This has been a painful duty. The hon. Member and I have known each other for many years.

Sir G. Nabarro: Sir G. Nabarro rose—

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member can make his contribution later.

Sir G. Nabarro: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way.
I have never at any time used the word "insist" about television appearances. I have never used the word, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman now to withdraw it. I have never used the word "insist" about public sittings of the Committee—I have suggested. I have never used it about television—I have suggested. What the Press or others may have attributed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a different matter.

Mr. Peart: Mr. Peart: The hon. Member may not have used the word "insist".

Sir G. Nabarro: Withdraw it, then.

Mr. Peart: He may have said "require". If he did not specifically say "insist", I will withdraw it. But this is the impression that he has left. I am not complaining. I hope that he will dispel it when he addresses the Committee. He has given this impression, and it is on the record. If the hon. Gentleman were to accept, fully, my right hon. Friend's statement on Monday, and withdraw completely his allegation of a Budget leak, I would, even now, seek permission to withdraw this Motion. If not, I have no alternative but to press it.

3.50 p.m.

Sir Lionel Heald: Before we decide on this Motion, may I earnestly ask the House to consider very carefully whether it is right for us to agree to the appointment of a Select Committee on the facts, such as they are, which are known to us and in the party political atmosphere which inevitably surrounds this matter.
May I make it clear at once that I do not for one moment presume to criticise any of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are to sit on the Committee, if it does sit. If there is to be a Select Committee, the Opposition must do their duty to the House of Commons. But it does not in the least prevent us on this side of the House from considering and giving our humble views on the matter. I think that that is supported by the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has, very properly, if I may respectfully say so, prescribed that there shall be a free vote on, at any rate, this side of the House.
This is a House of Commons matter. I cannot help being a lawyer, but I promise the House that I will not take a legalistic line today. I have not been a Member of the House for many years as things go, but I have a great love and respect for it, and I shall have that in mind in what I say. I believe that there are a number of hon. Members opposite, and possibly some right hon. Members—I certainly know of one—who think, as I do, that we should make a mistake if we appointed this Select Committee.
I firmly believe that the appointment of a Select Committee in a case of this nature—and I stress that—with the

essentially political background which will quickly come into the foreground, as it has already done this afternoon—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I do not know what the noises were, but they sounded a bit party political to me. I believe that the appointment of a Select Committee would be not only against the tide of development of our constitutional machinery for the investigation of unpleasant subjects like this, but a retrograde step in relation to the rights of the individual and of the democratic system in our Parliament.
The Select Committee procedure is notoriously deficient in almost every one of the principles to which we at any rate give lip service as part of the rule of law. I do not wish to weary the House, but, to show that I am not exaggerating, I should like to give a few details which can well be checked by any lawyer in the House.
First, there is no law applicable. The Committee is a law unto itself. There are no specific charges. There are not even any pleadings on paper. It is entirely an inquisitorial process. That is inevitable under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act. But that Act was passed deliberately because the Select Committee procedure was so deficient. There is no presiding judge, with all that that means in the administration of justice. That is not the slightest reflection on the Leader of the House, for whom I have always had the greatest respect. It is simply a fact that there will not be a judge of the High Court or of a higher court, as is proposed by the the Salmon Committee, presiding over the inquiry. Nor will there be a prosecutor who would be bound by the unwritten but compelling rules of conduct which apply whatever the case—even if the man in the dock is an old criminal.
The Select Committee would be a free-for-all. Anybody can ask any question he likes without any limitation. No objection to the question can be entertained. It is a free-for-all, with no holds barred. There are no rules about documents which may or may not be produced. That is a great protection in the law courts, where it is certain that all the available documents which are admissible will be produced and that prejudicial or unfair documents will not be produced. There is no rule of that kind. Worse still, the


person whose conduct is being inquired into—and we have no doubt who that is here—has no privileges of any kind. He does not even have the privilege that a man accused of murder or an old lag committing another offence has. [Interruption.] I have already intimated that we should have proof of the atmosphere, and I hope that we shall have a lot more as we go along.

Mr. Austen Albu: Mr. Austen Albu (Edmonton) rose—

Sir L. Heald: No. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I am in the middle of giving a list of deficiencies, as I think I am entitled to do. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman when I finish this part of my remarks.

Sir Frederic Bennett: As the Leader of the House did.

Sir L. Heald: The Leader of the House adopted that course.
The decision of the Committee does not depend on any judicial considerations. It is a party matter decided by vote. The Leader of the House pointed out that the Chairman would have a casting vote. The Government are entitled to have a majority in the Select Committee.
There are usually two reports, one minority and the other majority. When such reports are debated in the House, there is usually a scene which is rather like feeding time at the zoo.

Mr. Albu: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that a Select Committee more than half of whom are Queen's Counsellors, is unable to arrive at a simple statement of fact?

Sir L. Heald: I am dealing with the procedure of the Committee. I am sorry to say it, but I have been in places where the most eminent lawyers have behaved in the most illegal way. This is notorious in relation to their wills.
If it is thought that I have been exaggerating, I wish to call a witness, a man for whom I believe everyone in the House would have the highest respect, and who was one of the outstanding figures of the first half of this century—Viscount Cecil of Chelwood, who was previously Lord Robert Cecil. If anyone does not know about his relationship with this House as Lord Robert Cecil, he would know about his relationship with

the League of Nations and matters of that kind.
Viscount Cecil had the advantage of taking part in two such Select Committees. He is not a man who would speak with lack of moderation. First, he referred to the Jameson Raid inquiry. Jameson and others were sent to prison. However, after that certain people thought that they would like to pursue other individuals who had not been charged. Therefore, the House appointed a Select Committee and Lord Cecil represented a gentleman called Dr. Harris.
This is what he says about it:
There was no counsel for the prosecution, certain members of the Committee undertaking, more or less, to act as such. But as always happens in these circumstances, they had no one to get up the case for them. The result was that the Committee discovered nothing. Probably there was nothing to discover. But if there had been they certainly would not have discovered it … A Select Committee of that kind is, I believe, almost the worst possible instrument for clearing up questions of personal responsibility.
Lord Cecil went on to deal with the Marconi Committee, with which he was also personally concerned. The Committee was nominated by party Whips and after a long inquiry, rejected by a strictly party vote all the allegations against members of the Government. He said:
A minority Report, for which only the Conservative Members voted, while not making any charges of corruption, animadverted strongly on what was considered the grave want of discretion shewn by the Ministers impugned. I had a good deal to do with the drafting of the minority Report. The whole incident confirmed me in the view that, for what was in the nature of a judicial inquiry, no tribunal could be worse than a Select Committee of the House of Commons.
A number of hon. Members present now will remember Lord Winterton. He was the Father of the House when I first came here. He reminded us on one occasion of the scenes which took place when the Marconi Report was debated in the House—a most squalid occasion—he said—with howling across the House from both sides. I remind the House that we already have heard some noises of that kind today, even before the Committee has been appointed. What is to be the position after it has reported?
I have very little more to say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] There again is the absence of the judicial function in this House.
As a result of the experience on which I have quoted Lord Cecil, in 1921, the Tribunal of Inquiry Act was passed. It was passed for the very reason which I have indicated, to set up a procedure that would be judicial. This is what the Salmon Commission said about it, in addition to what the Leader of the House said:
When, in 1921, grave allegations were made by a Member of Parliament against officials in the Ministry of Munitions, the favourable impression made by the Parnell Commission and the unpleasant flavour left behind by the Marconi Report of Inquiry were remembered. It was felt that the investigation by Parliamentary Committees of Inquiry of alleged public misconduct were entirely discredited, and that accordingly new machinery should be created more appropriate to deal not only with the current matter but with any similar matters which might arise in the future.
That Royal Commission was concerned in advising whether the tribunal procedure should be continued and it unanimously and strongly recommended that it should. I do not think that we could have anything much stronger than that.
Hon. Members should ask what this inquiry is for. If there were a definite matter of urgent public importance it could be made the subject of a judicial inquiry, but the Leader of the House knows perfectly well that no judge would undertake the responsibility, because it would be fishing in the dark. Therefore, because they cannot get a judicial inquiry, the Government consider that they must have something, and this is the best they can do. I hope that the House will agree that it is not good enough.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker: The right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) told us that we should think carefully and that it would be a mistake to set up a Select Committee. So far as I followed his argument, it was against all Select Committees for any purpose. No Select Committee has a judge or prosecution and defence. This would apply to Select Committees on Private Bills. On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument we would have to abandon the whole system of Select Committees.
One point which he seemed to miss is that from time to time we have to provide

some kind of inquiry into statements and actions of public people where no legal offence has been committed or alleged. If this country could not make inquiry into such things, public life would immediately begin to degenerate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that there would be majority and minority reports, but, in my short experience on the Committee of Privileges, that has not happened. It has not happened on several Select Committees of this kind. Since the Marconi case—there have been Select Committees which have come to a conclusion without dividing on party lines.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is assuming that there is bitter party controversy over this issue, but there is not. The leaders of the Oppositions were extremely careful, wise and prudent in the line they have taken. The whole case of the right hon. and learned Gentleman rests on the assumption of bitter party controversy when there is in fact no bitter controversy on this matter.
The Marconi Select Committee was obviously a quite exceptional one, an aberration which went away from the general tendency of Select Committees before and since. There was on that occasion bitter political controversy, not only over that issue but during that time, and Ministers of the Crown were involved. The Opposition made an attack on the Government and, not to the credit of this House, the Committee did divide on party lines, but there have been other similar Select Committees since on which that has not happened.
If he had wanted to avoid having a Select Committee, the right hon. and learned Gentleman might have urged his hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) to withdraw his statements. Then of course, no one on either side of the House would want a Select Committee—not for the reasons the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave, but because this is an unsavoury affair and, if one can possibly avoid it, one does not want to proceed into it. But, clearly, the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South is not going to withdraw. He has missed two opportunities to withdraw. He could have risen immediately after my right hon. Friend the Leader of


the House had spoken and have withdrawn. Therefore, we must proceed to consider the Motion.
It seems to me, unlike the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that some kind of inquiry is necessary. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I am just coming to it; I do not make statements without giving my arguments. I am about to give reasons why some inquiry is necessary. First, it is in the interests of the hon. Member himself, because he made his statements outside the House, where other statements have been made challenging the veracity of what he said. That is a very grave and awkward situation for an hon. Member to find himself in. He should have an opportunity to vindicate himself and to establish which of the various statements he has made he wishes to stand by.
The hon. Member himself said on Monday last:
An inquiry … will be a happy circumstance for all of us who have contributed to this controversy, not excluding myself.
So he is one who wants an inquiry.

Sir G. Nabarro: The right hon. Member must not put words into my mouth. I said that it would be a happy circumstance, and a happy circumstance in the form of a Select Committee. We could then all contribute to the controversy, all who had knowledge of this nefarious matter instituted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The hon. Member appears to forget from time to time what he said previously. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] On Tuesday, he said that he gave "a general but … qualified welcome" to this specific decision. So we have the hon. Member on our side. He has given general, although qualified, support to the idea of setting up a Select Committee. So, when he speaks in the debate, I hope that he will stand by those words and show that he wants this Motion to be carried. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot argue by a running commentary.

Mr. Gordon Walker: It is in the interests of the hon. Member. If he himself said that he wants a Select Committee of this kind, that is reason enough to proceed with this Motion.
There are one or two other reasons. One is that the good name and repute of a considerable number of reputable printing firms have been aspersed, in remarks, at least, attributed to the hon. Gentleman. In the interests of the managements and workers of those firms, who are under some sort of general cloud of suspicion, those aspersions should be cleared up, and a Select Committee is the way of doing that.
The gravest reason for an inquiry is that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, as reported, made attacks of a very grave kind on civil servants and Treasury officials. He has made no attempt to clear those up, inside or outside the House. Outside the House he said he had information from inside the Treasury. He told the Sunday Times that what he meant by
my Treasury intelligence"—
was
own native ability to appreciate the financial situation, don't you see?
But in spite of this rather curious, not denial, but reinterpretation, three separate reporters with three separate shorthand versions bear out what he said. The Daily Express reported that he said
he had information from inside the Treasury";
in the Daily Mail, that
Treasury officials before Christmas told him",
and the Daily Mirror, that
I first had information before Christmas. It came from someone in the Treasury".
Those are very grave allegations to make, but a worse, a graver one was a statement reported by the Financial Times of 4th February to have been made by the hon. Member and never commented on by him, as far as I know, or explained away. He is reported to have said:
Last night, Sir Gerald told reporters: 'The type for the forms was set up and proofs taken. What the Treasury have decided to do, in my opinion, is to take the type apart'.
The hon. Member is, therefore, accusing Treasury officials not only of leaking secret information, but of destroying the evidence. This is a charge of such a grave nature against people who cannot defend themselves that it really must be gone into, if the hon. Gentleman stands by it.
For these reasons, some inquiry really has to be made. I think that the tribunal idea is not right. The House should always be extremely reluctant to set up a tribunal of inquiry which, by its very nature, departs from natural justice, although it occasionally has to be used. I think that the Select Committee is the only possible device open to us, because here we have a conflict of evidence which can be settled only by interrogating witnesses, and the Select Committee is the only way, short of a tribunal, which this House can use for arranging for evidence to be heard and witnesses to be cross-questioned.
Therefore, it seems to me that the case for some inquiry is overwhelming, and, if so, that the Select Committee is far the least bad of the solutions before us. It is a solution which has been welcomed by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, himself, and the House should not hesitate to pass the Motion.

4.13 p.m.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: I have listened to earlier speakers with a good deal of quietness, with an occasional intervention to correct them when they strayed from the paths of righteousness—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and I hope that I shall be listened to in reasonable quietness, too. I will return to deal with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick—Leyton (Mr. Gordon Walker)—later. [An HON. MEMBERS: "Kidderminster."] I was not defeated at Kidderminster.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a serious debate.

Sir G. Nabarro: There seems to be a good deal of dubiety about convention in a debate of this kind, when a Member of the House of Commons is, metaphorically, arraigned before his fellow Members for an alleged misdemeanour of one kind or another. Those in ivory towers are the occupants of the Treasury Bench, evidently; the colleagues of the arraigned Member spring to his defence largely on party lines—for there is no personal dishonour involved in the charge today; no personal dishonour, only a controversy about the Chancellor's forthcoming Budget—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Let me finish—

Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Member knows that is not true.

Sir G. Nabarro: —and whether secrecy has been observed or otherwise. That is the point at issue.
There is no charge against me of personal dishonour. If there is a charge of that kind, I hope that subsequent speakers in the debate will level the charge against me, for so far I have not been apprised that there is any mention of dishonourable—I repeat, dishonourable—conduct on my part.
Neither should there be any dubiety about conventions in this matter. The Daily Mail's political editor misled all his readers this morning, when the Daily Mail said:
Normally when an M.P.s conduct is involved and a Committee of investigation is set up by Parliament he keeps quiet until the Select Committee calls him to give evidence in private.

Mr. William Hamling: He is incapable of it.

Sir G. Nabarro: Of course, the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Ham-ling) may think that a highly humorous "Ha, ha, ha" intervention. Even the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) is telling the hon. Member to shut up.
I was, therefore, at very considerable pains to test convention in this matter with the best legal advice I could obtain from the Clerks at the Table and I learned that there is no inhibition put upon a Member of this House in speaking in a debate of this kind where his conduct, though not his personal honour, is called in question. I therefore sought to speak quite early in the debate so that all who follow me will have opportunity publicly to state their objections to my views. They are welcome to state those objections. I shall deal with them all seriatim and faithfully in the Select Committee.
Now let me deal first with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the House. I want to deal with them, first of all. The Prime Minister said last Tuesday:
I am well aware of what has become something of a convention that because of the Marconi Committee no one any longer trusts a Select Committee of the House … to


look into these matters with impartiality. But I cannot accept that view … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1969; Vol. 777, c. 227.]
The Prime Minister's view is that a Select Committee will proceed with the utmost impartiality.
The Leader of the House today followed that—I wrote down his words—by saying that it was wrong, that "members of the Select Committee will not be able to forget their party affiliations". "Not be able to forget their party affiliations".

Mr. Peart: I said that the central objection to a Select Committee seemed to be the expectation that Members will not be able to forget their party affiliations—

Sir G. Nabarro: Those are the words I want.

Mr. Peart: —and I went on to say, "I believe that fear to be misconceived."

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Sir G. Nabarro: Before the right hon. Gentleman or any of his supporters get—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Noise does not help the argument at all.

Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Murray) really should contain himself. I did not finish my quotation before he opened his large mouth and started expostulating. The words to which I draw attention are:
Members will not be able to forget their party affiliations.

Mr. Hamling: Finish it. Do not give it out of context.

Sir G. Nabarro: It is not out of context. It is exactly out of the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman. He is now nodding assent. I am seeking to say that the Leader of the House strongly confirms the Prime Minister's view that the Committee will proceed with the utmost impartiality.
I do not believe it. I do not believe that any one of my political opponents sitting on that Committee will be capable of proceeding with the ulmost impartiality. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Listen to them now. Those are the men who, for 20 years, have been dedicated to my political assassination. [Interrup-

tion.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer should not treat my remarks with such levity. If he were on the Committee, I should accuse him of the utmost partiality. He has demonstrated that on every public occasion when we have appeared together. I do not believe that the members of the Committee are capable of dispelling their political affiliations because they are sitting under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss).
In any event, look at the numerical composition of the Committee. There are six Socialists, four Tories and one Liberal on it. Therefore, even in the event of the Liberal voting with the Tories on issues which throughout—I repeat, throughout—will be highly charged with political explosive, they would, consistently be outvoted by the Socialist majority.
Does one really expect a fair hearing in those circumstances? I do not. That is exactly the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald). He was saying, in the most strictly legalistic tones and terms, that one could not have—let me use the Prime Minister's own incomparable terminology—a politically motivated group of men, as the Socialists on this Committee will be, to decide whether or not I have been guilty of a misdemeanour. Even if the Committee ruled against me on a Socialist majority, I should reject their findings absolutely.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: In view of what the hon. Member has just said, will he now join me in a recommendation to the House that the Select Committee should consist entirely of members of his own Front Bench?

Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher) gives me a valuable point. I am grateful to him, as always in these matters. I was about to proceed halfway with faltering steps towards him and to say that if the notions of the Leader of the House were by chance correct—that the Committee could proceed with impartiality—why not have a majority of Tory Members on it?
None would I prefer to see seated there more than my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). How delighted and gratified I should be to see my right hon. Friend


the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod.) [Interruption.] I cannot proceed against the amount of noise that there is from the benches opposite. It was my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West who pointed scornfully at the Socialist Opposition 1960 and said, "We do not need them. We have our own opposition behind us—the hon. Member for Kidderminister".

Mr. William Whitelaw: So what?

Sir G. Nabarro: My right hon. Friend says, "So what?" But, at least, it demonstrates—[Interruption.] It is, I agree with the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), a very good remark.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West is deeply appreciative of my work for his party. He is volunteering to sit on a Select Committee. If he had a majority of Tory Members, Privy Councillors of long experience, as ought to be the case, the matter would not be judged in a strictly partisan or party political sense [An HON. MEMBERS: "You hope."] I hope, says an hon. Member behind me. No, I have the utmost confidence in my right hon. Friend.
I have said enough about the manifest lack of impartiality of the Committee which is being set up, and I pass now to the second objection. None more so than the right hon. Member for Vauxhall should appreciate this point. The right hon. Gentleman has long and incomparable experience of matters related to privilege. He fought for two years in 1957 and—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would help the House if the hon. Member were more speedy in getting to his quotations.

Sir G. Nabarro: It may be a pious hope, Mr. Speaker, that I can proceed with speed. I can speak four times as fast if I am allowed to be heard over the crowing and jeering of hon. Members opposite.
I resume my argument. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall fought a long and sustained action in 1957 and 1958 on behalf of absolute Parliamentary privilege accorded to every document and every communication brought to this House. If anybody wishes to look it up in

HANSARD, the reference is column 246 of 8th July, 1958.
The right hon. Gentleman lost at the end of the day by the very narrow margin of five votes. I was here. I voted for the right hon. Gentleman because I conceived, as many of my Tory colleagues did, that it was utterly impossible for a diligent and conscientious Member of the House to conduct his parliamentary duties unless absolute parliamentary privilege is accorded to every communication brought to him, whether verbally or in documentary form.
For the Government to be so hamfisted as to appoint as Chairman of the Committee a man who has dedicated himself to the cause of parliamentary privilege—and I shall, of course, claim, among other things, absolute parliamentary privilege for everything I have done and said here in recent weeks—seems to me a blunder of a major character.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The hon. Gentleman seems to be mistaken. The battle of privilege in 1958 was over whether a letter between an hon. Member and a Minister about a matter on which the Minister was responsible should be subject to privilege or not. It was confined to that issue.

Sir G. Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman must not wriggle. I am well aware of the circumstances and I will not weary the House by relating them. I reread the whole case yesterday afternoon, in detail.
There is no difference between privilege, accorded or otherwise, of a document sent by an hon. Member to a Minister and sent by the Minister back to the chairman of a nationalised board, on the one hand, and a document brought by an elector to a Member of Parliament, on the other. There is no difference whatever. That may be contested and, of course, I shall take advice from those more learned than I in these matters—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey and others—but there is no doubt that privilege is paramount in the conduct of the duties of an hon. Member, and if that is contested by hon. Members opposite merely for the purpose of trying to assassinate my political—

Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is not worth it.

Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman shouts at me that I am not worth it. He has been in this House a relatively short time.

Mr. William Hamilton: I have been here longer than the hon. Member.

Sir G. Nabarro: No, the hon. Gentleman has not.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot argue by interjection.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there anything in the Motion which deals with how long an hon. Member has been in the House? The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) is now bringing the question of membership into his speech and that has nothing to do with the Motion.

Mr. Speaker: That underlines what I have said.

Sir G. Nabarro: I have sorted out from my voluminous mail this morning three documents, three letters to me, all of a defamatory and obscene character. They were directed against, first, the Prime Minister, secondly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, thirdly, the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity.
If I broke Parliamentary privilege and divulged the letters with the names, an action in the civil courts could follow at once for defamation of character and for libel. But, I am utterly privileged in receiving these letters. The men and women who wrote to me are utterly privileged in writing to me. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] Yes, they are.
If any hon. Member wants to see these letters, I will show them to him privately. I would not quote them in a Parliamentary debate because they are too obscene. The fact remains that Parliamentary privilege protects the actions of every Member of this House and that it is utterly impossible for a Member to conduct his duties without absolute Parliamentary privilege of every communication and every document brought to him. For all these reasons, I shall claim before the Committee—and I give advance notice of this—absolute privilege in the matter of any communications or any documents brought to me.
I come now to my third and last objection, as I see it, to the proposed Select Committee. I aver that the Committee should conduct its affairs in public. You have not selected my second Amendment, Mr. Speaker, and I will not allude to its terms, but I merely state that it is my conviction that it is in the public interest that the Committee should conduct its affairs in public. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Nabarro show daily."] Hon. Members opposite chide me on, "The Nabarro show daily". That is as may be.
What a feast for the national Press if the processes of the Select Committee are conducted, as the right hon. Gentleman said they would be, by interrogation and I am on the witness stand, under oath or otherwise, because there is no member of that Committee who will be able to suborn me or beat me down in question and answer. The hon. Member for Gravesend laughs. He is one Member of the House who could not. He is a mere flatulent lightweight.
Of course, the Committee should conduct its affairs in public. I give way on the matter of television cameras because Parliament has voted against its proceedings being televised, and as a Select Committee is a Committee of Parliament I concede that Parliament has decided against a Select Committee being televised. But I do not concede a point about public hearings. Neither do I concede that it should be within the discretion of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall, with the help of his Committee, to decide what is held in public, and what is to be held privately.
I say that this matter of motor taxation which I have raised and propagated is of such general public importance to 11 million motorists and 15 million licence holders, that every question and every answer should be given in public, with the national Press there. If it is held privately, I will immediately make the public accusation, both on the Floor of the House and outside, that the Government are running away from the consequences of their own policies. Further, no inhibitions should be placed on me from appearing in television programmes during the sittings of the Select Committee.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: Twice a day?

Sir G. Nabarro: I have been appearing twice a day the whole of this week.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) that many other hon. Members wish to speak. He must not digress.

Sir G. Nabarro: The charges brought against me by the Leader of the House are of a very serious character, Mr. Speaker, and I intend to defend myself. It is true that I have done 23 television and sound broadcast programmes in one week. Of course, some were of such quality as to have been reproduced. But I warn the Leader of the House that, if he proposes that his colleague, the right hon. Member for Vauxhall, shall call in aid anything said on a television programme, it may not be a question of just one line alleged to have been attributed to me on a television programme. It will be the document reporting the whole of the exchanges on the television programme, the entire transcript or text as sworn by a Commissioner of Oaths; otherwise, it will not be admissible evidence for the right hon. Member for Vauxhall.
If he does not require that in the Select Committee, I shall, of course, make the charge that he is proceeding unfairly and with partiality, so much of what has been said having been attributed to television—[Interruption.] It is no good the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), the Secretary of State for Social Services, growling when I say that. It was the Prime Minister himself who observed that he saw me on television. His words were:
I saw the hon. Gentleman on television last night.

An Hon. Member: We all did.

Sir G. Nabarro: I hope that all hon. Members did. That is why they pay their licence fees.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While I can understand the desire of the hon. Gentleman to set the terms of the Select Committee, have we no protection against his attempts to write the script in advance?

Mr. Speaker: Sir Gerald Nabarro.

Sir G. Nabarro: After the Prime Minister's observation, I said, "Good". The Prime Minister continued:
I am surprised and a little sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not given a general rather than what he calls a qualified welcome to what I have said."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1969; Vol. 777, c. 226.]
That is the answer to the right hon. Member for Leyton, who was gibing at me about my behaviour in responding to this proposal. I gave a general welcome to it. My qualification is first, because it is highly partisan in character and, second, because I have not heard officially that it is to sit in public.
I pass to my third and last point.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Would the hon. Gentleman not add a third objection, that the whole affair is unworthy of a Select Committee?

Sir G. Nabarro: The third point of my hon. and learned Friend—I call the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) that; I hope that he does not mind; we have much in common, of course—is exactly mine, but expressed in slightly different words. This whole Select Committee process is bringing Parliament, which I revere, into disrepute. Parliament is being ridiculed. That is why I object to the Select Committee.
At this point, I quote from yesterday's Sunday Express—

Mr. Albert Murray: Very non-partisan.

Sir G. Nabarro: "Current events", by John Gordon, had this to say:
Aren't our M.P.s making themselves look silly? Sir Gerald Nabarro, the Hancock of politics, is to be hauled before a select committee to explain where he got his information that Chancellor Jenkins intends to raise the tax on cars to £35. Now that doesn't seem to me a very exciting disclosure, whether true or not. But from the rumpus aroused, you would think that Moses had dropped the Commandments as he was coming down from Sinai. Nevertheless, if M.P.s wish to make themselves look foolish, who am I to stop them? As a public entertainment, the inquiry should set the nation rocking with laughter. Sir Gerald wants the T.V. cameras there. I back that. Nabarro the comedian facing Mr. Jenkins—who on T.V. usually contrives to look as woeful as a codfish—would beat even the Saga as a rollick. So much so that I suggest the committee should meet not in the daytime but at night so that we could all be at home to enjoy it.

Mr. William Price: Mr. William Price (Rugby) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions prolong speeches, and many hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. William Price: The hon. Gentleman quotes from the Sunday Express. Has he forgotten that, under a Conservative Administration, two journalists were sent to prison for refusing to reveal their sources of information?

Sir G. Nabarro: I do not think that that is relevant. I do not think that I should go into the case of Mr. Brendan Mulholland, Mr. Speaker. You would tell me that it was out of order at once. I am glad to have your assent. Sir, as always.
I come to my final example of the ridicule of Parliament. It appears in today's Daily Express. Never have I seen a cartoon which ridicules Parliament more than that in today's Daily Express. A diminutive Prime Minister is handing a pass to a policeman at the gate of the Palace of Westminster. The policeman has my face and wears the uniform of the Metropolitan Police.

Mr. Murray: Unlucky him.

Sir G. Nabarro: The Prime Minister is speaking, and the caption underneath reads:
Don't you recognise me, officer? I work here, too—I shift the scenery and so forth …
On the side of the Parliament building is a large hoarding. In big block capitals it says:
The Nabarro Circus.
630 Performing M.P.s!
'Select Committee'—the non-stop Revue I
'Question-Time'—the crazy-laughter show!
'Debate '—you'll die of laughter!
Big Ben does not have a clock face. It has my face. The castellations on the facade of the Palace of Westminster do not have their normal architectural adornments. Each one has my face. There are no hon. Members' cars in Palace Yard, only NAB 300 to NAB 400.
I will go no further with this descriptive matter. My case is made. Parliament is: being brought into utter disrepute by the Select Committee process. A great number of my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote against the Motion tonight. I gave it a qualified welcome. Had it

been an unbiased and impartial Committee, I should have supported it, but it is neither impartial nor unbiased. The proposed procedure brings my revered Parliament into disrepute. I do not propose to vote for the Motion or to abstain. I never abstain. I propose to vote against the Motion, because I believe that it is wholly injurious to the public interest and inimical to our Parliamentary democracy.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. Charles Pannell: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I will address my opening remarks through you, to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). I have never imputed to him any personal dishonour, nor do I now. I want to make that clear. On the other hand, he has imputed grave personal dishonour to all members of the proposed Select Committee, including those who sit on his side of the House.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) will be a member of the Committee. I would be prepared to be judged on a matter of deep honour by him. Looking at Members opposite, I do not believe that political life has sunk so low that decent and honourable means nothing. There is no sense in this life without honour. I would be prepared to be judged by a Select Committee composed only of Members opposite.
Recently, the Committee of Privileges—a Select Committee—judged the case of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). That was a deeply distressing experience. I challenge any senior Members on the Opposition Front Bench who sat on that Select Committee to say that Members from this side were any less objective in their judgment than they.
What is the sin about which we are speaking here? We are speaking about a proceeding in Parliament. If nothing had been said after last Monday at 3.30 nothing could have been done. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer came to the House, rested his hands on that Box, which contains all the documents on which we swear our oaths, and gave an assurance. The overwhelming body of Members of the House accepted that assurance.
Let any Member opposite who did not accept that assurance stand up now. Every Member accepted it, because when the Chancellor comes into this House and says, "This is so", he expects to be believed—[Interruption.] There can be no sense in that place, otherwise. I think that the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said something. Does he wish to intervene?

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. However, he should know that not all assurances which have been given publicly by the Chancellor in this House have been honoured. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware of that.

Mr. Pannell: We take this assurance in the context that this is a matter of the personal honour of the Chancellor. I cannot think of anyone who would not accept it in that context.
Because the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) did not accept that assurance certain things followed. I will give only two quotations from the Press, one of which was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Gordon Walker). Yesterday, The Sunday Times reported:
Treasury officials before Christmas told him"—
the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South—
they would be advising the Chancellor to increase the cost of a car licence to £35 …
That is a matter of the gravest imputation of a Budget leak from Treasury officials.
If people think that this is to be lightly brushed aside or that a Select Committee should not follow, let them take their minds back to 1947 and the Dalton episode. When the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was confronted with a breach of confidence, a few words to an old friend who betrayed the confidence, he decided to resign. Despite anything said by his colleagues, he came to the House and indicated that. That did not stop hon. Gentlemen opposite. After he had resigned, the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Winston Churchill, demanded a Select Committee. That was after he had resigned, after he had paid the price. That shows the extreme

vulnerability of the Chancellor at that Box. At this time of the year he is more vulnerable than anyone else. Because of the long tradition of confidentiality and protocol he expects, more than anyone else, particularly at this time of the year, to be believed. I will not bother too much if hon. Members opposite feel that they cannot vote for this Motion. However, there is such a thing as party loyalty between colleagues and comrades, and I have no doubt that everyone on this side will go into the Lobby to vote for the Motion tonight.
Concerning the performance this afternoon, we have never seen the like of it in this House before. In America, they had their late Senator McCarthy and Adam Clayton Powell, but we have never yet had a performance exactly like the one we had this afternoon.
What did the hon. Gentleman say about the Select Committee? The Sun of 6th February reports him as follows:
If they meet in secret I shall tell the newspapers after each session what has gone on, and I will appear on T.V. every night.
I am afraid that he will not—

Sir G. Nabarro: Sir G. Nabarro rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order.

Mr. Pannell: I shall give way in my own time.

Hon. Members: Do not give way.

Mr. Pannell: The hon. Gentleman will not be allowed to go on television. The BBC. and I.T.V. have at their heads distinguished ex-Parliamentarians who know what is involved in privilege and they will know their duties. I believe that the hon. Gentleman wished to intervene.

Sir G. Nabarro: I merely wanted to say that the right hon. Gentleman has been very kind and generous to me, classically so. But I will meet all these points of detail in the Select Committee. I have voluminous documents available. The Sun is grossly inaccurate in a great deal of its reporting. I will deal with any and every allegation put to me in the Select Committee. I understand that the debate today is not to deal with matters


of minute detail which will be dealt with in the Select Committee.

Mr. Pannell: I do not know the reason for this intervention. The hon. Gentleman did not deny that he wanted to lay down his own terms to the Select Committee. What he has said in his speech this afternon has underlined that. The hon. Gentleman has contempt for the Select Committee. That means that he has a contempt for the procedures of this House, so he has contempt for this House. He takes the lowest possible view of all members of the Select Committee. If the members of the Select Committee thought as he did and took such a low view of their fellow Members, they could not in honour serve this House.
At the end of the day all of us, including the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, have to submit to the will of the House. That is what Mr. Speaker swears to do on appointment. It might be that at the hearing before the Select Committee civil servants or the printers will want the protection of privacy. The honour of those men—indeed, their livelihoods—is just as precious to them as to the hon. Gentleman. The Select Committee must decide in all the circumstances and in its great corporate wisdom how it will conduct its affairs. I hope that the matter will be despatched speedily, because I think that it rests on a very narrow point. It does not rest upon the fan mail of the hon. Gentleman. I hope that the Select Committee will be allowed to do its job because I do not want, in the middle of it, a reference to the Select Committee of Privileges, something which could well happen. I hope that at the end of the day everyone will consider that this matter is sub-judice.
Last week the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) attempted to say that this was not the vehicle for dealing with this matter. It so happens that last week I asked my right hon. Friend to consider this as the appropriate vehicle for dealing with it, and I think that I must, therefore, seek to justify my reasons.
The Marconi affair is not a precedent, and it is curious that that long quotation by the right hon. and learned Gentleman from Lord Robert Cecil came from the leader of the minority side of the Marconi

Inquiry, who was responsible for the majority of the uproar. That is often the case. If that inquiry was brought into contempt, that was done as much by the gentleman quoted as by anybody else.
This House has continually referred matters concerning the honour of Members to Select Committees. The outstanding case was the Boothby affair, and then there was the case of Elijah Sandham, in 1929. But what is sometimes forgotten is that there has been a tendency since those days to refer these matters to the Committee on Privileges, rather than to special Select Committees. Having served on these Committees, I have no doubt that the Committee, right across the board, strives for a sense of natural justice.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Boothby case in 1940. That was 25 years after the Marconi scandal inquiry, and in the intervening period there had been investigations by the tribunal set up under the 1921 Act, including the one into the conduct of Mr. J. H. Thomas. The Select Committee machinery had not been used for some considerable time when it was used to inquire into the case of Mr. Boothby, as he then was.

Mr. Pannell: The Thomas case preceded the Boothby case. It was in 1937. What I am trying to say is that, particularly since the end of the war—25 years ago now—these matters have continually been referred to the Committee of Privileges, which is a Select Committee in itself. Allighan went there. He was dismissed from this House on the Motion of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). The Leader of the House, Herbert Morrison, in his mercy, suggested a six months' suspension, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman moved his dismissal, and he got support right across the House. Walkden had to depart from public life because of this. Even the case of the hon. Member for West Lothian, a recent one, went to the Committee of Privileges.
I am saying that this is not an expensive matter. It is not like a matter taken outside. It does not have a great array of counsel, but, for everything said against Select Committees, I can bring qualitative opinion against the tribunal.


When the last one was proposed hon. Members on both sides rose to attack the procedure. When it comes to looking at a man and his personal honour, there is no procedure which is not open to the gravest objections. I can assert with the greatest confidence that we know the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South far better than any tribunal can know him. When we speak in this House, it is as much what we are, as what we say. A character is like a bank account, something to be called on in case of emergency.

Sir G. Nabarro: Mine is very good.

Mr. Pannell: The hon. Gentleman already has an overdraft.
This is something which is rightly dealt with by Members of the House. There are on both sides of the Committee Queen's Council who are not alien to the processes of law, and whose legal training will come to the aid of their colleagues, as it always does. When a colleague is before a Select Committee one looks at him with as favourable an eye as possible, but at the end of the day one has to be objective in one's judgment. This should have been a clean and tidy proceeding. It could have been a minor inquiry to deal, not with a matter of honour, but with a matter of credibility. It could have dealt with whether civil servants had fallen from their standards of duty. It could have dealt with whether the hon. Gentleman himself was a victim of a fraud or a hoax. I am sorry, but, looking at the hon. Gentleman with the most favourable eye, I know, as we all do, that under the cap and bells of the jester, and despite his brashness, he is rather a simple-minded man.
I hope that we can recover our composure after the hon. Gentleman's speech. I hope that at the end of the day we can decide to have this inquiry. I hope that we shall carry it out with dignity, and that we shall hold our peace until our experienced fellow Members have come to a judgment. I hope we shall express the confident hope that those who have been slandered will be acquitted, and I hope, too, that the hon. Gentleman will be rather more careful in future.

5.7 p.m.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I think that the House of Commons is probably never at its best when discussing the affairs of one of our colleagues, on whichever side he may sit. My experience, after nearly 24 years here, is that the House as a whole is humane in its approach to such problems, but my feeling this afternoon is that this matter has got completely out of proportion.
I did not quite catch his words, but I think that the right hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Gordon Walker) referred to statements made outside the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). If my hon. Friend has made such statements, he is quite capable of looking after himself within the law which is available to him.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Even remarks made outside the House can concern the House if they are made by an hon. Member.

Sir A. V. Harvey: I stress what my hon. Friend has said about the matter of privilege. Where does it begin and end in relation to correspondence to and from an hon. Member?
The Leader of the House, for whom I have a great respect, said, though possibly he may not have intended this, that the Select Committee might be turned into a pantomime. I think that the right hon. Gentleman rather implied or suggested that that might happen. But we do not have to wait for that to happen. It happened as soon as debate started, which shows the ridicule of the whole matter.
Let us consider this affair. All the Members of this House, all 630 of them, are different, which is probably just as well. Whatever their characteristics, they all have a niche in the House for what they are. Everyone thinks that everyone else is eccentric, but I am sure everyone will admit that over the years my hon. Friend gave as much annoyance to my right hon. Friends when they were the Government, particularly those at the Treasury, as he has to the present Government.

Sir G. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Sir A. V. Harvey: The country has admired my hon. Friend for what he has done over the years in his battle to get


Purchase Tax reduced. He has made a political name for himself because of his actions on Purchase Tax matters.

Mr. Hamling: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that a charge by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) that Treasury officials have committed a breach of the Official Secrets Act can be dismissed as a nonsense?

Sir A. V. Harvey: That will come out at the Select Committee. I want to deal with the broad principle whether the Committee should be set up.
It is the duty of every hon. Member, whether in the Government or in opposition, to obtain information upon all matters in which he is interested. I have always found that in opposition the problem of obtaining information is far more difficult than in Government. One has to probe and look around, and it is very difficult to obtain a good brief in order to make a speech on intricate matters which concern the House.
I remember that in the late 1940s there was an expectation that the Soviet Union would attack the West. I had got wind of an actual date—7th June, 1949—and I interrupted the winding-up of a defence debate and mentioned this date when the then Minister of Defence—Mr. Alexander as he then was—was speaking. I intervened as a new and energetic Member. He was furious at the fact that I had hit the nail on the head. Had he taken the matter further and proceeded to carry out investigations as to where I had got my information he would have found that it had come from a colleague in the Air Force or the Defence Ministry during the war. If we are to pin down everything that an hon. Member says and ask where he got it from and consider whether he should have mentioned it, we shall be doing nothing else all day.
The Guardian made the point succinctly in the latter part of last week when it said:
Mr. Jenkins said that he was thinking of asking for an inquiry because Sir Gerald had made grave charges against unnamed individuals in the printing industry. This was probably the most illogical suggestion of the evening. No one can accuse a printer of leaking a printed Budget secret which (as Mr. Jenkins had already stated) has not yet been printed.

That sums the matter up. Had my hon. Friend obtained information which somebody could have used to make a large profit on the Stock Exchange it would have been another matter, but nobody could have done that. All that a person could have done would be to take out a new Road Fund licence on his car sooner than he would otherwise have done.
I cannot help thinking that hon. Members opposite are being very sensitive in the matter. They are very sensitive about everything at the moment. If they think that something is politically worth 50 million votes they want to pursue it.
My hon. Friend has irritated most of us over the years. Nevertheless, I have great admiration for the diligence with which he has gone about his work. When the Chancellor made his statement, that should have been it—never mind what might be the outcome of the Select Committee. [An HON. MEMBERS: "Why did not he withdraw?"] Hon. Members opposite must listen to the argument. I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the Select Committee, but it is clear that my hon. Friend will not go to prison for life. He will be back in the House in some form or other and will be on to something else. He is made that way. It would have been far better if, after the Chancellor had made his statement, the matter had been left there.
How long will this Select Committee sit? I have nothing against right hon. Gentlemen on either side of the House who are to be members of the Select Committee. I admire them all. No doubt they will do a very difficult job very well. The Committee might finish in one morning. On the other hand, it may go on for weeks, or even months. I hope that it will not drag on until the Budget period, because it might then be very embarrassing for the Government.
I am not trying to gloss over this matter in order to give my hon. Friend a clean bill of health, but I want to make the point that we are rather ridiculing ourselves in the eyes of the public. We are bound to do so. The cartoons have shown that, and they will go on showing it. All this is happening while the country is going through a period of great stress. One had only to read the leading article in The Times on Saturday


about our economic situation to realise the gravity of the problems confronting Parliament and to come to the conclusion that it is ridiculous that we should be asking Privy Councillors and other hon. Members to spend their time on a Select Committee which might take days and weeks or even months investigating a matter such as this. We should be doing far better if we dropped the whole matter now.

5.15 p.m.

Sir Dingle Foot: Mr. Speaker has enjoined upon us the need for brevity and I shall therefore make only one comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). His speech strengthened my conviction that the exercise on which we are now engaged is a sheer waste of Parliamentary time. We should not expect a Select Committee composed of busy and in some cases very distinguished Members to spend days, or perhaps weeks or months, enduring the kind of exhibitionism which has been shown today by the hon. Member.
There are two questions which must be considered in the debate. First, should there be an inquiry at all? Secondly, if it is right that there should, should it take the form of a Select Committee? In my view the answer to both questions is "no".
There have been many occasions in Parliamentary history when the House has ordered an inquiry. I had the privilege of giving evidence before the Salmon Commission on Tribunals, and I referred to some examples, in particular, the speech—quite frequently quoted—of Lord John Russell who, calling for an inquiry into the conduct of the Crimean War, said:
Inquiry is the proper duty and function of the House of Commons.
He gave two examples—the loss of Minorca in 1757 and the surrender by General Burgoyne at Saratoga, 20 years later. In each case the House instituted an inquiry. Many inquiries have taken place since then. There was the Parnell Commission; the Dardanelles inquiry, set up by Act of Parliament in 1916, and the series of tribunals of inquiry under the Act of 1921, the most dramatic of which was in 1935. I remember the

tragic speeches of Mr. J. H. Thomas and Sir Alfred Butt, whose careers had been brought completely to an end.
There have been other occasions when inquiries should have been held. I have in mind particularly the Suez invasion in 1957. Many demands have been made for an inquiry into the well-substantiated charges of deceiving the House and collusion with the Israelis and the French. These demands have always been rejected by hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite, who want to resist any sort of inquiry into what they did then.
But all these matters in respect of which inquiries were held, or should have been held, were matters of great consequence. On each occasion there was a solid foundation for the belief that there had been grave incompetence or maladministration in the conduct of national affairs, or some gross scandal involving Ministers or public officials.
Here we are concerned with matters of an entirely different order. If we have this sort of inquiry, what will it have to investigate? It will have to consider not merely the allegations of the hon. Member, as referred to in the Motion, but also the sources upon which he relied. Is a Select Committee of this House really to inquire into the gossip of public houses in Derby, or the precise colour of a piece of paper which was shown to the hon. Member by two unnamed visitors in the Lobby?
I have observed that every inquiry, whether by Select Committee or by tribunal, is remembered by a special name. It may be the name of the subject matter, or the principal participant, or even the chairman. Thus, we had, for example, the Crichel Down inquiry, the Marconi inquiry and the Lynskey Tribunal. This inquiry, I fancy, will go down to history as the Taproom inquiry. It seems to me that, when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced last Monday that there could have been no such Budget leak as had been inferred, that should have been the end of the matter. I believe that that would have been accepted by the whole House and that it was not necessary to pursue it further.
I now come to the other question: what should be the form of the inquiry? In saying what I do, I imply no disrespect


whatever to the right hon. and hon. Members whose names are mentioned in the Motion, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), who would be an admirable Chairman on the Select Committee if it were set up. But I submit that a Select Committee cannot be the appropriate tribunal in a case of this kind. That does not imply, as some people seem to think, any reflection upon the House or upon hon. Members, but when one has to examine witnesses and weigh evidence and decide whether one party or another should be believed, that is essentially a judicial function. The essence of a judge's office is complete detachment. He must not be a friend or an antagonist of any of those who appear before him and must have no interest in determining the issue, one way or the other.
In this House we are all partisans. So we should be. We are returned here as partisans. We, of course, know one another well, both in our own parties and across the Floor. We have our likes and dislikes. We are all supporters of one side or the other. In those circumstances, it is always extremely difficult for us to sit in judgment upon a fellow Member. That has been frequently demonstrated over the years.
For example, until 1868, the House used to appoint a Committee to decide disputed elections. I dare say that the integrity of hon. Members then was as great as it is today, but nevertheless they had to end that practice, because—not always, but generally—the Committee voted along party lines, whatever the evidence. Therefore, in 1868, we decided to delegate the function. We did not hand it over to the courts in the ordinary way, but entrusted each inquiry to two judges who had to report to the House. No one now proposes to go back to the old system. But it was because of considerations of this sort that the Salmon Commission concluded as it did—I think rightly.
There are always references here to the Marconi Committee, but that is not the only example. There have been many others. May I remind the House of one which has not yet been mentioned. That was when a Select Committee was set up in the 1930s, which reported in 1938, in what was known as the "Sandys case", involving the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). He had alleged

that, arising out of a Question which he had put on the Order Paper, he had been threatened by the Attorney-General of the day with prosecution under the Official Secrets Acts. The House set up a Select Committee, which heard a great deal of evidence—from the right hon. Member, from the Attorney-General and from various distinguished soldiers—and which divided on a number of occasions, each time, precisely on party lines.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred on Tuesday last week to two particular cases. He said:
Indeed, there have been Committees of this House since the Marconi inquiry, which took place in very special circumstances—for example, the Select Committees which inquired into Budget disclosures in 1947 and into the conduct of an hon. Member of this House during the war."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1969; Vol. 777, c. 227.]
I should like to refer to both of those.
The 1947 inquiry does not carry the matter any further, because in 1947 there was no dispute. Dr. Dalton—I might say in passing that I had the greatest admiration for him, because I served as his Under-Secretary for two years during the war—got up at the Box and admitted to the House that he had been guilty of a grave indiscretion in making a disclosure of the contents of his Budget to a journalist before his Budget statement. There was no dispute that he had made the statement, or that the journalist had immediately telephoned his newspaper. The only matter which the Committee had to consider was not who was telling the truth but how far the proprieties of Fleet Street had not been observed. That was the only issue before them.
Then there is the other matter to which my right hon. Friend referred, the inquiry into the conduct of an hon. Member. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) has already reminded us, it was the conduct of Mr. Robert Boothby. I must say, because I am one of the few hon. Members here who survived from 1940—there are some others, but not very many—that many hon. Members at that time were extremely unhappy about that inquiry. It took place in 1940, at a time when party feeling was running very high indeed. In the Division in the "Norway debate" the House had overthrown the Chamberlain Government, but, even after that, there remained for some months the greatest


bitterness, particularly among Mr. Chamberlain's supporters. It may have been natural, but it was so.
I remember very well how, when Mr. Churchill got up at that Box and made some of his most famous speeches—for example, the one about fighting on the hills and the beaches—they were greeted with rapturous applause from the Labour and Liberal benches and almost dead silence from the benches on this side. I do not want to go into those controversies again, but I recall it because it was in that atmosphere that that inquiry took place. On the one side, there was a majority of the Committee who had been Mr. Chamberlain's supporters and, on the other, an hon. Member who was well known throughout his career to have been a close adherent of Mr. Churchill—

Mr. John Mendelson: Returning to the Dalton case, would my hon. and learned Friend not agree that, when the Leader of the Opposition of the day demanded an inquiry, although there had been no dispute on the facts, one factor in his mind was that the Treasury was involved? Is not this an important factor which must be taken into account?

Sir D. Foot: I have no way of knowing what was in the mind of the Leader of the Opposition on that occasion.
I was going on to the other case. I am not saying that the majority of the Members of that Committee were influenced by their political feelings. They may have been able to be entirely unprejudiced—I do not know—but as one who was here in 1940, I think that there was widespread uneasiness about a Committee which was, inevitably in those circumstances, constituted in that way.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I, too, was a Member of that Parliament and my recollection on some of the matters to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers is not identical with his. Surely the point of that inquiry was that the gentleman concerned was not only a Member of this House but was being criticised for his performance in this Chamber in speaking without disclosing an interest and having received a fee for his advocacy in this Chamber, and that that was why a Select Committee was chosen as the appropriate vehicle?

Sir D. Foot: I deliberately, of course, have not gone into the merits of the controversy. I am not asking the House to go over again what was considered by that Committee. I am merely saying that there was, at the time, considerable uneasiness in all quarters of the House arising out of the political circumstances which then prevailed, that it was extremely difficult for hon. Members of the Committee, in those circumstances, to be, or at any rate to appear to be, completely impartial. I am not saying that we should not go back to Select Committees for any purpose.
Here I should like to say this to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Gordon Walker). I do not think any of us have suggested that we should dispense with Select Committees. There are many things which they do very well indeed. We had a Select Committee on the surrender of peerages a year or two ago. We had a Select Committee on stage censorship, presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss). We had a Select Committee which reported on privilege nearly two years ago, and I regret that we have not yet had an opportunity of debating its Report. But we ought not to have a Select Committee where this entirely different form of inquiry is involved. Therefore, even if there should be an inquiry—which I do not believe there should be—this is the wrong sort of inquiry.
I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West: I do not regard this as a question of confidence. This is a House of Commons matter. I think this is the sort of issue on which both Front Benches should listen very carefully to the opinions that are expressed from behind. On the other side of the House there is a wealth of Parliamentary experience on the back benches. On the back benches on this side of the House we have a unique assortment of angels and ex-Ministers. I think we should be listened to on this occasion, and that is why I hope that the Government will have second thoughts.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Maudling: I do not intend to speak for long. As the House is aware, there is no question of taking a party position on this side of


the House. I think I ought to say a few things, as one who has grown to love this House over 19 years and as one who held for a short time the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer and, therefore, who is aware of the high traditions of the Treasury and of the great burden which falls upon the Chancellor.
I had not intended earlier to intervene in the debate, but I have listened with growing apprehension as the proceedings have rolled ahead. In my view, this is a matter which we must take seriously, but for heaven's sake do not let us take it pompously. If we are pompous about it we shall make ourselves look foolish, and that would do even more harm than has already been done. There is a real danger, which is appearing as the debate goes on, that this is degenerating into an argument of a party political character. I see some force in the argument that this is almost inevitable if a Select Committee in the form proposed should be established at the end of the day.
Let us be clear on what it is we really want to know. We do not want to have an investigation into tittle-tattle and public-house gossip, as the right hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot) said. Nor is there a question in my mind of inquiring into the conduct of an hon. Member. That is not the point at issue, and must not become such. There are only two possible things of which the House wishes to know more. Of those two, the second is the only one which is substantial.
First is the question of information being given by Treasury officials, and the second is the question of the document seen by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). On the first point, this has not been his assertion. In any case, it is incredible that Treasury officials should give away information. I do not believe that my hon. Friend asserts that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is my understanding. It is an incredible assertion and I do not believe it has been made. The real point is the document to which my hon. Friend referred. Here we have a situation in which an hon. Member says that he has seen a document, printed by order of a Government Department, which discloses a decision to increase a tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that no such document could have been printed by

order of the Government Department. Here is a clear conflict of fact, and I submit that this is the only thing that really matters.
I accept unreservedly that the Chancellor is sincerely speaking the truth. I also believe that my hon. Friend saw a document of the kind that he described. Surely all we want to know is: what are the facts? Has the Chancellor been misinformed of something done without his authority, or has my hon. Friend been hoaxed by something which was not a genuine document? That is all that really matters. Do we need the enormous paraphernalia of inquiry to do this? I am sure that both the Chancellor and my hon. Friend would be only too delighted to find out what the facts are. Surely, to do that we need some far more informal inquiry attended by people whom one knows to be impartial and before whom the information could be placed by my hon. Friend without fear of prejudicing those who gave the information to him. I am sure that that can be done. This document could be put forward for inspection by an impartial body without prejudicing its confidentiality. Surely this is what my hon. Friend wants.
We want to know whether this was a genuine document or not. I do not think a Select Committee is necessarily the right way of doing it. I suggest that we should concentrate on this one point which really matters and ascertain the best way of clearing it up.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Eric Moonman: Speaking as a relatively new Member, I think this has been a sad day for Parliament. The main gist of the debate has been affected by various political charges, countercharges and, perhaps more important, I believe there has been a shift in the case as a result of the rather extraordinary performance by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). Nevertheless, I believe the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) is absolutely correct when he says that we must give our attention, as indeed must the Select Committee, to the one specific point, namely whether the document mentioned by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South exists or was seen. This is the central issue and one hopes that all the various arguments will stem from this.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that I could get such a document this afternoon and show it to him? Does that mean that there would have to be another Select Committee on that? Anyone can get a forged document.

Mr. Moonman: The important difference is this. The original statement and the original document were said to relate to specific printing establishments, hence charges were made against members of a printing union and against Treasury officials. There is a great deal of difference between the usual fun-and-games printed proofs which are circulated in fun fairs and this document which we are debating.
I think it is necessary to consider one or two things said by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South. He asked us not to criticise his honour. Yet we must certainly examine his conduct. Some serious charges have been made against the integrity of the Select Committee, and references have been made to the political affiliations and to the fact that it is politically motivated—his words. It is, therefore, necessary to remind the hon. Gentleman that a Select Committee, composed of a representative part of this House, is surely able to look at these matters in a detached way.
The other point to be borne in mind is that the hon. Member said that he would demand Parliamentary privilege for various documents and for his television performances. This again shows a shift in his argument. Does it mean that he will let the Committee see the documents? Originally he said "Yes", but apparently now he says "No".

Sir G. Nabarro: No doubt inadvertently, through a slip of the tongue, the hon. Gentleman mentioned that I had claimed Parliamentary privilege for television performances. I have done nothing of the kind. I merely claimed Parliamentary privilege for documents sent to me by electors outside this House. I did not claim it for television performances of the kind in which I clobbered the hon. Gentleman a few evenings ago.

Mr. Moonman: It is with horror that I now see the hon. Member's exotic performances extend to the Charleston. The point at issue here is that the hon. Gentleman

has shifted his ground so much that anybody who has a certain affection for him finds it difficult to know exactly what he has been prepared to argue on any one occasion.
The next point which is relevant to this matter is to demand what the issue is all about. The right hon. Member for Barnet emphasised this, and I agree that this is the job of a Select Committee. It is also important to try to assess why this is being done. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) was misjudging the whole mood of the debate. He asked, in effect, "After all, is it necessary?" He was saying that his colleague would not be sent to gaol but would return, and, in saying that, he rather suggested that the whole thing was not serious enough for a Select Committee. I believe that it is. It would be a great mistake to imagine that because an hon. Member can make charges, can product evidence, can use a means of mass media which did not exist 50 years ago, the matter can rest there. It is up to us to show what we are trying to do.
This is not an entertainment. If it is, it is a tragedy rather than a comedy. Allegations of improper conduct have been advanced concerning certain types of evidence which reflect not only on the House but on the printing industry as a whole. I hope that, with these brief remarks, the Select Committee's direction is clear. It must move speedily and with efficiency, but it must certainly do a thorough job.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Perhaps with the exception of the right hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot), no hon. Member would disagree that some sort of inquiry is necessary, since serious allegations have been made by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). Grave allegations have been made by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South and unless they are publicly cleared up, anxieties will be left in the minds of the public and grave reflections will stand against the record of certain officials of the Treasury, unnamed printers and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I remind the House that it was the Chancellor who stood at the Dispatch Box and said categorically that no such


forms could have been printed. Everybody has taken his word for that. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, on the other hand, has repeated some of his allegations and has made new ones, as the Prime Minister said in his statement last week. In these circumstances, we cannot sweep this matter under the carpet. We must do something about it, particularly in view of the disgraceful speech made by the hon. Gentleman today.
It is obvious that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South is determined to exploit this issue for every ounce it is worth. He said he would continue to appear on television on every possible occasion—I will leave it to the Select Committee to decide whether or not that is proper—continue appearing in John Gordon's column in the Sunday Express and in cartoons in the Daily Express. The Express newspapers are not helping to uphold the dignity of this House. [Interruption.] Their whole object seems throughout these proceedings to be to undermine the dignity of this House and cast ridicule on its proceedings. The only person who has given any cause for ridicule to be cast on himself is the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: If we are today setting the scene for this pantomime to continue, how on earth can we be assisting to uphold the dignity of this House?

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, egged on by certain newspapers, has managed to convince an enormous section of the public that where there is smoke there is fire. Most hon. Members will have received letters on this issue. In the last week a constituent has written to me saying that he had been told by a friend that these forms were being printed at Westerham, which is just outside my constituency. They are being printed in Derby one moment and in Newport, Monmouthshire, the next, and even in parts of London within a 10-mile radius of the centre. Practically every printer is having to issue denials about being in any way responsible for printing these forms. This cannot be allowed to continue and, for this reason, some sort of inquiry is necessary to clear up the matter.
Having said that, I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Ipswich that a Select Committee is not the best way of proceeding. He rehearsed the history of Select Committees and I agree that we must carefully reflect on that history in considering whether a different sort of machinery might be more appropriate. The right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) disagrees with me and has made it clear that the Marconi inquiry should not be treated as a precedent. He urges us to consider some of the matters which were inquired into by Select Committees since that time to see whether they put up a better performance in assessing whether or not they looked at issues from a party political point of view.
I urge hon. Members to recall two matters; first, the one mentioned by the Prime Minister and commented on by the right hon. and learned Member for Ipswich—the case of Mr. Boothby during the war—and, secondly, the Dalton inquiry in 1947. Why, from 1912, when the Marconi inquiry was undertaken, until 1940, when the Boothby Committee was set up, did this machinery fall into disuse? I do not know of any other instance which occurred between those dates when a Select Committee was called into being especially to inquire into a matter affecting the conduct of an hon. Member. There were inquiries of this kind, but they were always undertaken by a tribunal set up under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, which was passed because the Marconi Committee came to a party political decision.

Mr. C. Pannell: As I pointed out, such matters were not referred specifically to Select Committees because it was considered that the Committee of Privileges was a Select Committee and could always be called into being. It was called into being in the Salter case, when allegations of drunkenness involving hon. Members were made, in the Duncan Sandys case, in which Mr. Winston Churchill, as he then was, not only spoke in the debate but served on the Committee of Privileges to try his son-in-law, and in the Sandham case in 1929. There were not too many such cases, but I pointed out that the Select Committee procedure was considered appropriate in those matters.

Mr. Lubbock: I urge the right hon. Gentleman to make a distinction between a Select Committee established especially to inquire into the conduct of one hon. Member of this House and the Select Committee of Privileges, which continues in being throughout the Session and to which matters of this kind may be referred.
In, for example, the Sandys case in 1938 the Select Committee of Privileges first considered the matter and subsequently another Select Committee was set up, but this was done not particularly to examine the conduct of that right hon. Gentleman. It was a Select Committee concerned with the Official Secrets Act and its terms of reference were more general. I am showing that, as the right hon. and learned Member for Ipswich pointed out, this machinery has not been generally used since the 1921 Act was passed because of the danger that party politics would enter into it.
Although one accepts entirely what was said by the right hon. Member for Leeds, West—that we do not consciously take party political affiliations into a Select Committee of this kind—there is always the suspicion that the conclusions may have been influenced in some way by those affiliations. That is why I think that we should not have this form of inquiry.

Mr. Hooson: Is there not also a danger that the public think that the Committee may have come to its conclusions on political grounds?

Mr. Lubbock: Absolutely. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) is quite right. If Members of the Committee consist, as they do, of a majority drawn from the supporters of the Government party, and the Committee finds that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South had no evidence and cooked it all up with the Sunday Express over the telephone from Dublin after a rather good lunch, the public might well think that the hon. Member had evidence but that, because the Committee was biased in favour of the Government, it had come down against him and had rejected his allegations. That is why I would prefer the sort of inquiry which would not involve the politicians from beginning to end.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: If the hon. Gentleman rejects the Select Committee procedure as being inappropriate for the reasons he has given, what other procedure has he in mind? Does he think that the tribunals of inquiry procedure, for example, is suitable for a matter of this kind? Would not that be a four-times mammoth sledge-hammer to crack the nut?

Mr. Lubbock: That was the argument put by the Leader of the House, and I was about to come to it. I remind the Leader of the House of paragraph 22 of the Report of the Royal Commission on Tribunals of Inquiry, which seems to me to apply precisely to this case. It says:
The history of inquiries to which reference has been made shows that from time to time cases arise concerning rumoured instances of lapses in accepted standards of public administration and other matters causing public concern which cannot be dealt with by ordinary civil or criminal processes but which require investigation in order to allay public anxiety.
Is not that precisely what this case is about? We have a rumoured instance of a lapse in the accepted standards of public administration. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South has said that information has been revealed by the Treasury, or if not, that the Treasury has allowed certain people, employed by it to print these documents, to show them to him or at any rate to other people as well. That is a rumoured instance of a lapse in accepted standards of public administration and it is causing public concern. If the tax were to go up to £35 that would surely be a matter of great public concern.
Because of these rumours, which are all over the country, right hon. and hon. Members are receiving letters about them which are filling our postbags, and we are having to write back reassurance to these members of the public, sending them the Chancellor's statement that it was impossible for such forms to have been printed. I agree that this could not have been dealt with by any ordinary process, since no charge against the Treasury or any of the printers—who have not yet been named—or, indeed, against the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South himself, has been made.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Perhaps the experience of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) is similar to mine. I did not have any letters at all about the matter until there had been a suggestion that there should be an enquiry.

Mr. Lubbock: I did not get as many letters about it before the inquiry was announced, but I did get some, going back a month or six weeks. The rumours have been circulating for a long time, although people may not have been brought to write to their Members of Parliament until the matter became someing more of a public issue.
I think that the Leader of the House will agree that paragraph 22 of the Royal Commission Report fits this case very well. The only anxiety I would have about appointing a tribunal is that many of the recommendations in the Report have not been implemented by the Government. The Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, is not entirely satisfactory, for reasons we need not go into now. This is a matter on which the Government should be criticised, because no action has been taken in the two years since the Report was published. If we require some continuing machinery for inquiries into matters of the kind I have read out, the Government have been negligent in failing to amend the 1921 Act since the Royal Commission reported. If they had not been negligent in this respect, we would not have had all this trouble.
If this Select Committee procedure is, indeed, too large a sledge-hammer to crack the nut, why not a Departmental inquiry? Departmental inquiries, according to paragraph 43 of the Royal Commission's Report,
… are normally used to investigate matters which are causing public concern, but which are not of such importance as to justify the appointment of a Tribunal under the Act of 1921.
Of course, the snag there is that a Departmental inquiry would have no power to compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of documents, and therefore the Royal Commission says that such inquiries are not suitable for dealing with the special type of case for which the 1921 Act was framed.
In this case, however, no documents are there to be produced, because the

hon. Member for Worcestershire, South said that he handed the documents back to the printers from whom he received them and has not seen them since. So it is all very well for the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) to say that the important and crucial issue to be established by the Committee is whether or not the document was genuine or a fraud and a hoax perpetrated on the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South because, when the Select Committee begins its proceedings by saying, "Let us have a look at the document", the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South will reply. "I am sorry, but the printers took it away when they left the Central Lobby. I have not the faintest idea where they are. I could not help you even if I wanted to."

Mr. Arthur Lewis: There is nothing illegal, as far as I know, in any hon. Member going to the Post Office, getting one of these forms and, as my printing friends will appreciate, making a galley insertion, stating any amount he likes.

Mr. Lubbock: That may be so, but it has been suggested that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South has been the victim of a fraud or hoax. When an hon. Member opposite suggested this, the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South shouted "No". So he personally is convinced that the document was genuine.
It is a great pity that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, by refusing to withdraw when invited to do so by the Leader of the House, has wasted many hours of the House's time which could have been far better spent in discussing the important Bill for the renovation of old houses which is due to come before us later, and I still hope that, even at this late hour, he will come into the Chamber, make an unqualified withdrawal, and save the time of many right hon. and hon. Members who are far too busy and well occupied elsewhere to waste their time on this Select Committee.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Joel Barnett: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) that it would be a very fine thing for the House if the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) were to withdraw his allegations, but, after what we have seen this afternoon, we cannot expect that.
Although there has been some humour, this is a very sad debate for the House. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South said that he revered the House. I find those words a little odd coming from him because of his exhibition this afternoon and in the past week, which has done more to harm the House than anything done or said by hon. Members in a long time.
The hon. Gentleman made a disgraceful attack on the impartiality of the members of the Select Committee which it is proposed to set up, and his attack on its proposed Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), was particularly disgraceful. All hon. Members will respect and revere my right hon. Friend's integrity and honour. It was a most disgraceful attack. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot) referred to the partiality of the Committee in a rather more restrained and serious manner.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: In fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), it should be said that he did not attack the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss). What he said was that because of the right hon. Gentleman's previous connection with a privilege case he ought not to have been chosen as the chairman. That was not an attack on the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Barnett: I prefer to leave it to those hon. Members who are present to draw their own conclusions.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich referred to the partiality of Labour Members of the Committee. The Committee will not discuss a political matter. It will be discussing a matter of fact. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen cannot accept the complete impartiality of any hon. Member when considering a matter of fact, I shall be very disappointed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) dealt with this issue very well. With the possible exception of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, any hon. or right hon. Gentleman would put the House before himself.
Because of the harm the hon. Gentleman has done the House and future Houses of Commons, we cannot laugh it

off. Many hon. Members have asked why, when we all accept the truthfulness of what was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last Monday, we cannot leave it at that. Incidentally, the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) did not exactly do anything to help, because he used the words "if there is such a form" that can be shown by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South. There can be no "if". If all hon. Members accept the Chancellor's statement as true, as we all do, the hon. Gentleman could not have seen a genuine form.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) is not here, but I know enough of what was in his mind to be able to answer for him. My right hon. Friend was not casting the slightest doubt on the veracity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is not a member of this Front Bench who feels the smallest doubt when the Chancellor tells the House that there was no such printing. Not one of us doubts that he was absolutely correct. I must say that it seems to be doubtful whether there is anything to inquire into, but that is another question.

Mr. Barnett: I will come to that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that his right hon. Friend did not cast the slightest doubt, and I entirely accept that, although it is my recollection that his words were somewhat equivocal.
The fact that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South is arrogant and foolish is irrelevant and unimportant. What is important is that there are still millions of people outside the House who do not believe the Chancellor's statement of last week. I know that it is difficult for some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite not to look for some short-term political advantage in that, and the right hon. Member for Barnet tried to gain some such advantage in his statement over the weekend. He could not help doing so and one can understand it. But that is a very short-sighted attitude, because more important than any short-term political advantage is the long-term harm which can be done to the House itself.
Many people feel that the House itself will be hurt by the inquiry which we are about to have, and I know that this view


is genuinely held by those who accept the Chancellor's word. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen argue that they know that the Chancellor was truthful and that if the House has accepted his word, as it has, and that if it is accepted in the editorial offices of most serious newspapers, as it is, that is sufficient. But it is not enough for us to say that we accept the Chancellor's word and that it is accepted in editorial offices. His veracity must be accepted by millions of people throughout the country as well, and that basically is why I am in favour of having an inquiry.

Mr. Hooson: Can the hon. Gentleman recollect one Select Committee inquiring into the conduct of an hon. Member which has done any good to the honour of the House?

Mr. Barnett: My right hon. Friend mentioned many kinds of Select Committee and inquiry. As with many things, with incentives and taxation for instance, it is very difficult to prove one way or another, but that is no argument for not having an inquiry, and that is the logic of the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson).
I was saying that it is not enough for us to say that we accept the Chancellor's word and that we here can now loftily say that it does not matter what millions of people are thinking. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South is wicked in the sense, for example, of the late unlamented Senator McCarthy in the United States.

Sir G. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Barnett: But it is a fact that when smears and rumours and unsubstantiated statement were allowed to continue in the United States for a very long time and when responsible people in both Houses of Congress did nothing about them, loftily saying that they knew that they were all a lot of nonsense, in the end it had to be recognised that it was not enough to say that the man was dishonourable and was talking a lot of nonsense. Something had to be done, and we, too, have to do something. We have to stamp on this sort of thing, and stamp on it hard.
If lies by two unnamed men are allowed to go unexposed, it is not just the future of the present Chancellor of the

Exchequer and the present House of Commons which will be at stake. The Budget plans of any future Chancellor of the Exchequer could be circumscribed in an absurd fashion. We must, therefore, scotch this story for this reason. This is not an argument about the fact that there is too much Budget secrecy. I have long argued that the pomp and ceremony of one annual Budget is nonsense, but that is not the argument now.
One has only to think of what would happen if similar incidents were allowed to go unexposed. All that can happen on this occasion is that some people may buy their car licences for 12 months in advance instead of four months, and may, therefore, spend money in advance, but one has only to consider similar unsubstantiated rumours about Purchase Tax or import quotas which might lead to companies throughout the country importing hundreds of millions of £s worth of stock, and that could have a serious effect on the whole economy. It has long been argued that the secrecy surrounding the Budget is nonsense, but that is not the issue which we are discussing today and I hope that nobody will put that argument, as it has been put outside. The so-called leak has been taken seriously by millions of people, and any Chancellor would be put in an impossible position if nothing were done about it. We have to think also of future Chancellors of the Exchequer.
I intended to refer to the Treasury officials—this is probably one of the most serious allegations—but the matter has already been dealt with adequately by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Gordon Walker). If the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South is prepared to say now that he withdraws completely any allegation that Treasury officials gave him information, then this would be a very considerable help to the House.

Sir G. Nabarro: What I am prepared to say is a repetition of what I said earlier, that all matters of detail will properly be dealt with before the Select Committee, including these continuous references to some unnamed and unknown Treasury officials.

Mr. Barnett: I should like now to refer to the harm that has been done to the printing industry generally. If it is ever


accepted that a worker or employer in a printing company, because he does not like, or disagrees with, something which he is printing, or perhaps for political or financial purposes can disclose something which he is printing, then it is a most serious matter, not just for this House, but for the printing industry and industry generally.
In another capacity, I have to give balance sheets out to be printed, like many others who do similar work. We never for one moment think that any printer would disclose anything in the balance sheet or use it to his own advantage, which he could. There are many other statements which printers could use to their advantage. It would be a most serious happening if ever it were thought that because some Conservative or Labour trade unionist happened to think that something he had might be of some political or financial advantage, he could use it.
This cannot be allowed to go on without being answered. The House is aware only too well of the hon. Gentleman's reckless disregard for the interests of this House. We know of this and are aware of the circumstances, and of his desire for colourful stories. But to publicise patently false and unsubstantiated evidence outside and inside this House against the best interests of the House is to do himself, probably, more harm than the House. However, in the process, he is harming the House in a way which we cannot allow to go unchallenged.
Equally, the Opposition Front Bench bear a little responsibility. Last Monday, when the Chancellor made his statement, we who were here all know that their silence was eloquent confirmation that what the Chancellor had said was true. That was the time to do a little more, to be a little bigger and stand up and say emphatically that it was true. It might have stopped the rest of this, because with both the Chancellor and the previous Chancellor opposite saying precisely the same thing, maybe even the Press and television, as eager as they were for colourful stories, would have thought again about pursuing this incident.
I believe, therefore, that if only inadvertently, the Opposition Front Bench bear a little responsibility, although, as with the right hon. Member for Barnet,

it is understandable that they could not forbear enjoying, perhaps, a little of the embarrassment that the Government found themselves in.
I know that there is a genuine fear that what happens after we have set up this Committee might result in the martyrdom of the hon. Gentleman. There is no need for anything of the sort. All that the Committee needs to do is, in a very brief series of meetings, to expose the facts. Nothing else. There is no need for any exhibitionism such as we have seen here. This does not help in arriving at the facts, and would not help the Committee. I agree that it is true that the inquiry cannot tell us what we in this House already know, but it can tell the truth to millions of people outside who have been misled, and I do not believe that it becomes us in this House to belittle the need to do just that.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I had not intended to intervene in this debate, and as it is I shall be extremely brief. I am led to intervene by what the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) has said in criticism of the Opposition Front Bench. Let me say, lest there be any question at all about it, that it does not seem to me that my right hon. Friends, who are more responsible for this aspect of public affairs than I am, could have done anything else but what they have done.
When the Chancellor comes to the House and makes a statement of fact that there was no Government printing done and, therefore, there could then have been no genuine document, every member of this Front Bench would accept it at once and without question. What is more, we consider it so much our duty to accept a statement coming from the Government Front Bench to this sort of effect that it would not occur to us to get up and say that we believe it, because it would not occur to us that anyone else would believe anything else. Let that be made absolutely clear.
There is something else that must be made absolutely clear. Once the Government have proposed an inquiry of this kind, my right hon. Friends really could do nothing but go along with it. We had to. What is more, we had to field the most respectable team that we


could find, and I believe that the House will agree that we have fielded the most respectable team, outside the Front Bench, which, of course, is not appropriate. I think that we have succeeded in that I do not see what on earth we could have done, honourably, except that.
Having said that, may I express one note of dissent from the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton. He puts the case to the opposite effect of what I believe, and I am speaking now and hereafter only for myself. He put it so clearly that it is possible to answer it very shortly. I start from the proposition that I think I know a mare's nest when I see one. I do not believe in investigating mares' nests. It is a most infructuous operation, because a mare's nest has the peculiar and unenviable characteristic that, although it does not exist, it grows with scrutiny. The hon. Member says that we have to stamp out this sort of thing; that there are millions of people who might believe it, so we must have an authoritative denial. Let me put this very brief argument to the House which is where I find my point of difficulty.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said, quite rightly, that the only thing which is within the terms of reference of this Committee is what my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) said, or is said to have said, and whether there is any truth in it. As the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), rightly pointed out, this does not cover the rumours at all. He has heard a rumour about Westerham. There has been another about Basingstoke. There may well be a third about Bristol. If one is to stamp on this kind of thing, one would have to investigate them all. That would open up the kind of nonsense which, speaking for myself, I am most anxious not to open up, and which, incidentally, could not be done under the present terms of reference proposed.
Therefore, this kind of inquiry, whether it is done by a tribunal, or by a Select Committee, or informally by some other methods not specified, cannot on these terms of reference kill the rumours. It is not equipped to do so, and rumours grow with scrutiny. If it did not happen at Basingstoke, well it might have

happened at Eton and Slough, and so on. Somebody will write a letter and another hon. Member will get up and then there will have to be some more inquiries. There never was anything in it from the start. This is the point. Investigating a mare's nest is always an infructuous operation.
It is said that these are very serious allegations. Of course they are. It was a very serious allegation when it was suggested before the Denning inquiry that a Privy Councillor served dinner in Connaught Square dressed only in a pair of leopard skin pants. But it did not justify the Government, of which I was a member, wasting the time of the Master of the Rolls inquiring into such drivel. We should consider the dignity of the House, which is better served by taking a robust attitude rather than a namby-pamby attitude towards nonsense and saying that it should be inquired into.
I find it difficult to go along with the Leader of the House, not, as the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton suggested, because I hope to get any kind of even temporary party advantage out of this—nobody is getting any advantage out of it, least of all the House—but because I think that we are embarked on an escalating process of inspecting mares' nests. If we limit our inquiry, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South will be asked, "Where is the document you saw?" He will say, "I have not got it; I gave it back". He will then be asked, "Who gave it to you and what did it look like?" He will say, "I do not propose to reveal my sources. I claim Parliamentary privilege".
Then the wretched Select Committee will have to report to the House that a serious question of Parliamentary privilege has been raised, and we shall have to discuss whether it is privilege—not an altogether easy question. Then we shall have to decide what to do with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South. Radio 4 will say, "We have just sent our reporter into the Clock Tower to interview the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South". He will be asked, "How does it feel to be inside the Clock Tower?". "Oh", he will reply, "I feel just like John Hampden". This is nonsense, and I think that it should stop.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: You have asked for brief speeches, Mr. Speaker. I hope that I shall not be considered too unduly eccentric if I follow your wish in the presence of so many long-winded Privy Councillors. It is something of a blessing because your request for brevity means that an hon. Member has an excuse for not going over all the ground covered by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) and into all the astonishing irrelevancies which he put forward.
There is, however, one point which I wish to make about his speech, and that is how awful it was that he should be so insulting about hon. Members on this side of the House and those hon. Gentlemen opposite who are prepared to serve on the Select Committee. For the hon. Gentleman to suggest that their examination of the matter would be coloured by their party political views was very unworthy. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider his statement. I reject the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot) about whether this is the right sort of tribunal. It appears to me that it is a trbiunal of the hon. Gentleman's peers, and I know of no better form of justice than that.
When the proposal to set up a Select Committee came before the House, I had considerable sympathy with the view expressed by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) that it was taking a sledge hammer to crack a nut. My view was that everyone in the House—and here I follow to some extent the argument of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg)—knew that words which issued from the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South were hot air and, therefore, that no great consideration would be paid to them. To many of us, in that sense, it would seem that we are in the process of setting up something akin to a committee of scientists to discuss the theories of the Flat Earth Society.
My attitude has changed and I now take the view put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett), for two reasons.
First, not everybody outside the House has had the opportunity which we have had of acquiring some immunity to the virus which emerges from the species Nab. Egocentricus. The allegation that some printers have been guilty of a breach of trust might well be believed somewhere.
Secondly, suspicion might fall on some of my constituents. I understand that licence discs and the tax tables are invariably produced by Her Majesty's Stationery Office at its printing works in Harrow, and that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South once had some connection with the borough of Harrow. Although the works are not in my constituency, some of my constituents are employed there, and I intervene in the debate to protect their interests. These men are selected for this sort of employment because of their integrity. Therefore, their honesty is a job qualification, and the defamatory allegations made by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South could be potentially harmful to them. Certainly they are allegations of a particularly nasty nature, and my constituents are entitled to have them thoroughly and carefully examined so that the truth can be made known. That is the answer to the point put by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey).
I wish to place on record my complete confidence in the integrity of my constituents who work for Her Majesty's Stationery Office. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South should not be allowed to drag their good name into the gutter with impunity. Therefore, I shall support the Motion.

6.26 p.m.

Sir Frederic Bennett: The speech of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) was a perfect illustration of the way in which the House is rapidly making even more of a fool of itself every moment the debate continues. The hon. Gentleman spoke about constituents whose names were being vicariously dragged in the gutter concerning something which has not happened. I might as well claim that an aunt living in Torquay of a printer nephew living in Harrow would be extremely hurt about what had happened. Let us get back to the realms of sanity,


which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) tried, I hope successfully, to do.
Much as I love a party row, I promise that I shall speak without any sense of party feeling tonight. I am not championing my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro); I am championing the House of Commons. The question has been put—and I have not heard one hon. Member supporting the Motion answer it—"What are we to inquire into and what will be the answer that we shall get?". There has been a great deal of reference to impartiality and partiality, but what are we to ask about? What will happen as a result of this inquiry? I feel very sorry for those who will have to take part in it, and I am very thankful that I do not have that doubtful honour.
What will happen? My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South will be asked, "Were any Treasury officials involved?". I do not know what his answer will be. If he says, "Yes", he will then be asked, "Who were they?". He will say, "I refuse to say because I will not divulge the names of those who have been to see me". He would have honourable grounds for saying that; there are plenty of precedents for it. Would lie then give the same answer to the House? If so, would one of the drastic penalties be imposed upon him?
Moving to the question of the form, my hon. Friend might say, "There was a form and I saw it". He will then be asked, "Have you got it now?", to which he may say, "No, I have not". Then he will be asked, "Who gave it to you?" and he will say, "I refuse to say because I will not give away the name of my informant". What will we then do? Shall we have to go through all the letters he has received and check them, assuming that he is willing to give them to us? What about the letters which have been sent to the rest of us? Shall we have to send those to the Select Committee? I do not think my colleagues have thought this matter through. I ask sincerely and even passionately what purpose this procedure will serve.
I had a sick feeling in my stomach when this inquiry was announced that we should all make fools of ourselves. Nothing that has happened since has changed

my mind. On the contrary, my feeling has been strengthened. It is no good hon. Members blaming my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South or the Press for this. If we provide them with the ammunition and fuel for the fire, it is our fault.
There are only three sets of people who can make fools of themselves out of all this. First, there are the Government. I do not see why I should waste time or sympathy on them. If, instead of coming to the House the other day, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had treated the matter with almost the contempt which unsupported rumour deserved and had sent a junior Treasury official in his place, the whole thing could have been dead. [Interruption.] I am entitled to my view. It is at least as sane as some others which have been expressed today.
The second point concerns the people who hope the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South is making a fool of himself over this. On the contrary, my hon. Friend is playing the major rôle in it. He would not want anybody to be sorry for him. He has decided upon a course of action and is quite capable of looking after himself. Hon. Members opposite who think that they have got the fox on the run should remember that very often it is the fox who gets away and the riders come a cropper, especially if, after their experience of my hon. Friend, they think that the pack is now safely in full cry after him.
Thirdly, I believe that we are inquiring into a non-event. The Chancellor gave his word. Everybody knows that whatever a Chancellor might prevaricate about, he cannot prevaricate about forms which are not printed. In this matter, the House of Commons is very much in danger of making a complete fool of itself. It has the chance, even at this late stage, to drop the affair.
Every hon. Member accepts that the Chancellor was telling the truth on the day he made his statement. Quite apart from the printing not being done, I do not suppose that at this stage he has even made up his mind one way or the other about the car tax. It would be very unlike him to have made up his mind about it as early as this before the Budget. Why on earth, because an atmosphere of nonsense gets going, the House of Commons blows it up into an


even bigger nonsense, I despair of knowing.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price: There are times in this House when the faces of hon. Members sitting quietly on the green benches are more eloquent than the speeches of some hon. Members who are addressing those faces.
I have been a Member of this place for a number of years and I think that I can claim to be as familiar as most hon. Members with the atmosphere of this House. It is generally a generous place, a place which can often make noise over small things. It is a place in which, when the truth is at issue, most hon. Members are able to look to their opposite numbers, even on the other side of the House, and know that they are men of honour.
If any impartial observer of our debate this afternoon had dispassionately tried to assess the weight of the speeches that were made, apart from the official speeches which had to be made by, for example, my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council from the Front Bench in setting up the Committee in his Motion, and had listened later to the attempts that were made by quite distinguished legally qualified Members of this honourable House to queer the pitch by legalistic arguments about what should be permissible in arriving at the truth of this matter, such an impartial observer must have been very dismayed. If he were a person of any humour, as distinct from one who took a ponderous view, he would probably be thankful that he had gained free admission to the Gallery this afternoon and had wondered why at any time he had paid 25s. to go to the Palladium.
I do not take a frivolous view of this matter, although I am bound to admit that when I came in this afternoon I was strongly biased in the direction that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) has just expressed. During all the exciting controversial references to this deplorable affair, I have felt that perhaps a little banter, humour and good-natured debunking of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) was the best way of dealing with it. When, however, the hon. Member came here this afternoon

and addressed us at great length and called into question the integrity of senior Members of the House, on both sides, who are named on the Order Paper as prospective members of a Committee of Inquiry into a serious matter, he treated them all with ridicule and contempt. Then he had the complete effrontery to say that the House was bringing itself into contempt, whereas nothing has done more to bring this House into contempt than the rumbustious, irresponsible behaviour of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South.
I heard the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone earlier, before he repeated it tonight, put the point more dramatically than he has put it this evening about a mare's nest. I heard him say a few days ago, when, as he frequently does, he gave us all the benefit of his advice, in a very loud voice which can sometimes be heard at St. Paul's—

Sir G. Nabarro: Yesterday?

Mr. Price: I do not come to the House on Sundays.

Sir G. Nabarro: No, on the radio.

Mr. Price: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said a few days ago in my hearing that the most fatuous activity in which this House can engage itself is the investigation of a mare's nest. That was, perhaps, putting it more elegantly than he has put it tonight, and I agree with him.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor), who is a rather senior colleague in this House—he has been a Member for many years—and does not often speak, said the other day, perhaps rather clumsily, and was shocked at himself when he said it, that it was rather unfortunate that this honourable House should invoke the cumbrous machinery of a Parliamentary steam-hammer to crack a Parliamentary nut. Of course, many people put their own construction on "Parliamentary nut".

Sir Charles Taylor: We must have the quotation right if it is being repeated. I said that it was a pity to use
a sledgehammer to crack a popular but publicity-minded nut."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1969; Vol. 777, c. 589.]

Mr. Price: I accept the correction. I do not want to be unfair to the hon.


Gentleman or to anybody else in this House, but in the few minutes that I hope to detain the House I want seriously to say this. When I came into the House today I was very doubtful about setting up this elaborate Committee, but after listening to the hon. Member who is the centrepiece of these proceedings, I am persuaded that it is the right thing to do and that we cannot just brush this incident aside.
I believe that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, if he were arraigned by the criminal court on a charge of manslaughter, would so behave himself before the trial judge that the charge would be increased to one of capital murder. He has so little appreciation of a sense of proportion, he is so eaten up by megalomania, by the publicity bug that eats so many people in this House and makes fools of them, that he cannot see how humorous he is being sometimes, and he should be offering his services to Bernard Delfont and not to this House.
I do not want to say anything else except this. I am sorry that the hon. Member is not at present in his place, but about an hour ago I listened with respect, as I always do, to another senior Member of the House, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey). He said that even if there was anything in the rumours that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South has been peddling round the country and appearing about 23 times on television and radio, that shows the sense of proportion in the people who run the country's great publicity services. That they elevate this kind of crackpot activity into something of national importance is something that I deplore.

Sir G. Nabarro: Sir G. Nabarro rose—

Mr. Price: I am not giving way. There are occasions when I would give way to the hon. Member with pleasure, because I have always said—and I have broken lances with him many times in this House—that the hon. Member has one redeeming feature. Whilst all his political activities are actuated by the most crude form of malice and political bigotry, in his personal life he has no malice at all. I give him that.
To return to the hon. Member for Macclesfield—

Sir G. Nabarro: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Price: No. The hon. Gentleman has so behaved himself in this debate that I do not propose to give way to him tonight. On some other occasion, but not tonight, Josephine.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield said that the hon. Member who circulated these rumours, having failed to produce any evidence whatever to substantiate them when called upon by the Chancellor, could not profit from it, that there were no means of making financial profit by peddling these rumours. I accept that straightaway, but there are other directions in which the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South can profit very considerably. He and his party can obtain a tremendous amount of political profit from these rumours spread about the country in the way they have been, if they are not completely denounced. It is all very well for a lot of people of good will on both sides of the House saying that there are no politics in this, but I am not so naive as to believe there are no politics in this. There is a hell of a lot of politics in this, and nobody knows that better than the hon. Gentleman who started the rumours.
If I were to deal with this as a matter of justice and equity and if I were given the job of trying this as a one-man tribunal I would not make the heavy-weather which we have made of it today, but I would regard as monstrous the offence which the hon. Gentleman has committed against the good name of this House, and I would sentence him to—

Sir G. Nabarro: To the Tower.

Mr. Price: Not the Tower. I would not sentence the hon. Member to more publicity. I would say that he should be rebuked in the first place for acting irresponsibly and that he should be called upon to surrender all the fees he has obtained from journalism and television, to be donated to the Water Rats Benevolent Society, which, I think, is a society for the benefit of bankrupt, distressed comedians who cannot get help from public funds.
I see you are shaking your head at me in dismay, Mr. Speaker. I assure you I am not speaking with complete levity, and I shall now sit down saying that I


shall vote for this Motion even though my first intention was to abstain because I thought we were making too much of the matter. However, I shall vote for the Motion because matters have gone so far that I think they should be cleared up in the one way the House can clear them up.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) because I really feel there was an utter and complete fallacy in his argument. He said, very sensibly, that he came here with the view that we were making a mountain out of a molehill. Then he said he changed his mind as a result of the speech made by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) today. Surely it is nonsense that, as a result of the speech made by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, whatever we may think of its contents and its quality, we should decide to set up a Select Committee to inquire into allegations made of disclosures about motor vehicle tax. If a sensible man, as I am sure he is, like the hon. Member for Westhoughton first came into the House believing we were making a nonsense of ourselves, as I believe we are, then I can only wish that he would stick to that view and not be put off it by anything the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South may unfortunately have said today.
May I briefly speak in support as strongly as I possibly can of every word which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) said? This inquiry surely is a nonsense. The Leader of the House said that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South was trying to make a nonsense out of this issue. With all respect, I feel that with this Motion we are now probably setting the first scene in that pantomime.
One has to ask, what are we to inquire into? According to the Motion, we are to inquire into
disclosures of information and documents
to do with the matter of vehicle taxation. What is the state of the evidence? The state of the evidence is that allegations were made at a public meeting, the

Chancellor came to the House and said that they were without foundation, and he gave reasons which, to me, were utterly compelling, that those forms could not have been in existence at that time. So he answered the allegations. He started his statement by saying that the allegations required an answer, which he then gave. So now we are setting up an inquiry into a negative. We are inquiring into alleged disclosures of information and documents which do not exist. Surely, that is a nonsensical basis on which to set up any inquiry.
If the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South chooses to produce some evidence that would justify an inquiry, then, all right, have an inquiry, but, till he does that, I for one cannot possibly see what there is to inquire into.
The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett), whose views I respect and to whom I listened with respect because I know he feels strongly about this, referred to McCarthy smears.

Mr. Barnett: No.

Mr. Carlisle: Perhaps it was another hon. Member, but one hon. Member talked about McCarthy smears. But the McCarthy smears named people. We have been told that these allegations smear unnamed people. We have not been told their names. What is the position? The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South will, apparently, be asked, "Who are the Treasury officials? "He will reply, "I am not going to say." What does the inquiry do then? Is the Committee going to call in front of it every Treasury official to say, "I am not the official who did not say anything"? What is the position to which we shall get? Till the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South replies to the Chancellor's statement, then I for one believe there is nothing into which to inquire.
What concerns me is that, taking this matter in the way the Government now wish, we are being invited to make fools of ourselves. I am not stupid enough to believe that the reputation of Members of Parliament is particularly high at this moment, but surely a Select Committee made up of senior Members of this House and of Privy Councillors is still meant to stand for something, still has a good reputation. To set up a Select Committee to make this type of inquiry is to lower


the reputation of Select Committees. Obviously, I have great respect for hon. Members on both sides of the House who would serve on the Committee, and some of them are of the same profession as that to which I myself am proud to belong, but I would think, with all respect, they would have more important things to do than to inquire into matters of this kind.
I believe we are setting up a very grave precedent. It seems to me that, once this inquiry has been set up, then if any hon. Member cares to make a statement stating something as a definite fact, and then it is denied by the Treasury Bench, immediately we shall have to have an inquiry to see who is telling the truth, or who is mistaken, or who is accurate. The hon. Member for Hey-wood and Royton certainly made the point, it seemed to me that his very argument implied, that in future, every time there is a rumour circulating in the country, then at once we shall have to have an inquiry into it in order to reject it, because, he said, the necessity of the inquiry was because the rumour was so widespread. He said that, though we accepted what the Chancellor said, people outside did not, and he said that, because of this, that argument could be used at every other time there might be a rumour. I believe that by this proceeding we are doing this House harm, that we are doing the reputation of Select Committees harm, and that we are wasting time on a very minor matter. I hope the House will throw out this Motion.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Peart: With the permission of the House, I should like to reply to the debate. I hope that I shall not speak for long because the debate has already gone on for some time. Many points have been raised by hon. Members giving conflicting views, as is inevitable in debates of this kind. I respect for his contribution every hon. Member who has spoken. I hope and trust that, as always in matters like this when it is not a party issue, hon. Members speak clearly from their own point of view rather than allow their political prejudices to affect their judgment. I hope that this will be our approach.
As I said at the beginning, the debate itself gave me no pleasure. I repeat that I deeply regret the circumstances which have made this Motion necessary. I said that I intended to take up as little of the time of the House as possible and to try succinctly and clearly to say why it is important that we should set up this Committee and not use the procedure of a tribunal, why we should not ignore this incident, and why we should not have an ad hoc investigation like the Denning inquiry. On balance I think hon. Members, after having listened to the arguments made in the debate, will come to the conclusion that the advice I gave was right.
I do not want to repeat all the arguments, but I think I should take up the interesting intervention made by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). I have always respected him on matters like this. I remember his eloquence on many a non-party occasion when we discussed the conduct of an hon. Member. I shall not refer to the speech in question, but he will remember a speech which he made with great eloquence. I remember it to this day. He intervened in this debate and it is right that I should take his point of view seriously.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that it did not occur to his Front Bench colleagues or himself to disbelieve the Chancellor's statement when he replied in the House to a Question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens). I accept that, but it is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) does not believe that statement. Even after the statement, he has continued a campaign in the country, not only in the Press but on television and the radio, and has made certain allegations. He has not accepted frankly and fully what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said last Monday.
The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone said that his right hon. Friends go a long way with the Government in their decision to set up a Select Committee. I accept that. There were consultations in the usual way. I have not complained about the attitude of the official Opposition on this. I accept that hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House disagree with


the views put forward for the Government in the setting up of this Committee. Of course the right hon. and learned Gentleman is entitled to his views and he has been supported by a distinguished lawyer, the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). He argued that he knows there is a mare's nest and that rumours will grow if we continue to treat it in the way we are doing now, but there have been serious allegations.
I accept that we should adopt a robust attitude to nonsense, but that is not the question. When an hon. Member makes serious allegations there is always the danger of escalation, but serious allegations have been made and the terms of reference of the Motion are:
That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into, and report on, statements made by the honourable Member for South Worcestershire relating to the alleged disclosure of information and documents concerning Vehicle Excise Duty.
The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South is not on trial in a criminal sense. He has made certain allegations and we cannot dismiss them lightly, as many hon. Members have said today.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), supported by a very powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett), put the matter clearly to the House. Allegations have been made, not against named individuals. Here I take the point about McCarthyism. It is true that in America there was persecution of certain sections of the community by McCarthy, who attacked individuals in certain cases, but not in all cases. Here allegations have been made against the Chancellor. The Chancellor's word has not been accepted. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South has said that he has irrefutable evidence, but he has not produced it.
Charges have been made against printers and allegations have been made against Treasury officials. These have all been repeated. I have here a tremendous file of broadcasts by the hon. Member and Press reports in reputable newspapers. I have the Daily Mail for 6th February in which he made other accusations. It is repeated by the Daily Mail not only about workmen in industry

but also about those in charge, "the bosses". It may be that hon. Members take this lightly and think that it is a mare's nest, but these allegations have grown. Accusations have gone on, and it was inevitable that something should be done.
Some hon. Members have suggested various approaches. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot), a former Solicitor-General who has great legal experience, criticised the Select Committee procedure. When one reads the Salmon Report one finds that perhaps his view may be confirmed, but I find that I can quote from the Salmon Committee Report—the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) confirmed this—to show that in certain circumstances the Select Committee procedure is the right procedure, and that in this case it is better to use it than to have the heavy procedure of a judicial tribunal.
There are those who say that we should have something different. A suggestion has been made by the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and there are those who say that we should leave well alone because in the end the procedure will harm us. But the Chancellor's word and his statement have been accepted by the House and in the country. I do not wish to pursue the argument too far on these matters for we have argued them thoroughly. My advice to the House is that we must trust the Select Committee. I have been Leader of the House for nearly a year and during that time I was on a Select Committee dealing with an hon. Member on my side. That was the Committee of Privileges. We never thought of it in any party sense. Hon. Members on both sides never judge such an issue from a party political point of view.
I have sufficient confidence in the members we propose for this Committee to believe that that will be so in this case. When hon. Members cast reflection on the impartiality and the candid exercise of judgment by hon. and right hon. Members they do a disservice to Parliament. I have read carefully many of the cases, going right back into history, in which we have had inquiries. I read the case which was mentioned by the right hon.


and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), a former Attorney-General. He went back to the Jameson Raid of 1896 and to the subsequent inquiry, and he asked the House to consider the words of Lord Robert Cecil. It is true that, in the autobiography of Viscount Cecil, formerly Lord Robert Cecil, he stresses how that Select Committee did not serve a useful purpose and made mistakes. Then we go to the later Marconi case and the cry of "Sticky fingers". I can remember Lord Winterton in his House reminiscing about it just after the war in a case rather like this.
Nevertheless, they are the exceptions, and I believe that we have improved our standards of behaviour since the Marconi case. I do not accept the view that Parliament's standards have declined and that individual right hon. and hon. Members are inferior to those who served years £go. Despite all the criticisms of the House of Commons and Parliament and despite the fact that we are now under the greater glare of publicity through the new media of television and radio, I believe passionately that right hon. and hon. Members have reached high standards. I do not accept the argument that we are debasing Parliament by debates like today's. However, Parliament can be debased if hon. Members make wild accusations after statements have been made categorically by a member of the Government and no evidence otherwise has been produced.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My right hon. Friend has dealt with the past and the present. Will he deal with the future? If, tomorrow, I say that I have irrefutable evidence in the shape of a letter in my possession that the Chancellor intends to put up Purchase Tax by 10 per cent., the Chancellor denies it, and I persist in my allegations, are we to have another Select Committee?

Mr. Peart: I hope that my hon. Friend will not press his argument too far. He has an Amendment on the Order Paper. In any event, I do not think that that hypothetical case is in the same category.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: This is the present.

Mr. Peart: We are dealing with the present. We are dealing with the accusations

of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, who, I see, has just entered the Chamber. I hope that he will take his seat. I am sorry that he made the speech that he did. I have disagreed often with him on many matters. He has criticised me, quite rightly. When I was a Minister, he put Questions to me on many issues, again quite rightly. Always, I have found him nothing but courteous. Unlike some hon. Members, perhaps, always I have had great respect for him. However, I wish that he had acceded to the invitation which I gave him at the end of my opening speech. It was referred to by the hon. Member for Orpington, and I repeat it for the benefit of hon. Members who may not have been present when I made it.
If the hon. Member were to accept fully my right hon. Friend's statement of Monday last and withdraw completely his allegation of a Budget leak, even now I would seek permission to withdraw the Motion. I hear no response. I am sorry about that. For that reason, I have no alternative but to ask the House to support my view.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Silkin): I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn—I mean, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put. put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I will put the Question in four parts.

The Question is, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into, and report on, statements made by the hon. Member for South Worcestershire relating to the alleged disclosure of information and documents concerning Vehicle Excise Duty—

Mr. Richard Sharples: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that the Chief Whip moved the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Hogg: Certainly, he did not move "That the Question be now put".

Mr. John Silkin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was in the middle of moving the Adjournment when


I changed it to moving, That the Question be now put.

Question put accordingly:—

The House divided: Ayes 221. Noes 65.

Division No. 59.]
AYES
[7.3 p.m


Albu, Austen
Gregory, Arnold
Newens, Stan


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Alldritt, Walter
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Norwood, Christopher


Allen, Scholefield
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Ogden, Eric


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
O'Malley, Brian


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hamling, William
Oram, Albert E.


Barnett, Joel
Hannan, William
Orme, Stanley


Bence, Cyril
Harper, Joseph
Oswald, Thomas


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Bessell, Peter
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hattersley, Roy
Padley, Walter


Bishop, E. S.
Hazell, Bert
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Blackburn, F.
Heffer, Eric S.
Park, Trevor


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Parkin, Ben (Paddlngton, N.)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hilton, W. S.
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Booth, Albert
Hooley, Frank
Pentland, Norman


Boston, Terence
Horner, John
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Boyden, James
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Howie, W.
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E


Bradley, Tom
Hoy, James
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Brooks, Edwin
Huckfield, Leslie
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hunter, Adam
Randall, Harry


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hynd, John
Rankin, John


Buchan, Norman
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Rees, Merlyn


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cant, R. B.
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Rov (Stechford)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Carmichael, Neil
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roebuck, Roy


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Chapman, Donald
Judd, Frank
Rowlands, E.


Coe, Denis
Kelley, Richard
Ryan, John


Coleman, Donald
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Conlan, Bernard
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Sheldon, Robert


Crawshaw, Richard
Lawson, George
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Dalyell, Tarn
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Silverman, Jullus


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Skeffington, Arthur


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lipton, Marcus
Slater, Joseph


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lomas, Kenneth
Small, William


Dell, Edmund
Loughlin, Charles
Snow, Julian


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lubbock, Eric
Spriggs, Leslie


Dickens, James
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dobson, Ray
McBride, Neil
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Doig, Peter
McCann, John
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Driberg, Tom
MacColl, James
Swingler, Stephen


Dunnett, Jack
Macdonald, A. H.
Taverne, Dick


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
McGuire, Michael
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Thompson, Rt. Hn. George


Eadie, Alex
Mackie, John
Tinn, James


Edelman, Maurice
Maclennan, Robert
Tomney, Frank


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Tuck, Raphael


Ellis, John
McNamara, J. Kevin
Varley, Eric G.


English, Michael
MacPherson, Malcolm
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Ennals, David
Manuel, Archie
Wallace, George


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mapp, Charles
Watkins, David (Consett)


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Marks, Kenneth
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Faulds, Andrew
Marquand, David
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Femyhough, E.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Whitaker, Ben


Finch, Harold
Mayhew, Christopher
White, Mrs. Eirene


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mendelson, John
Wilkins, W. A.


Foley, Maurice
Millan, Bruce
William, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Forrester, John
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Fowler, Gerry
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Freeson, Reginald
Moonman, Eric
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Gardner, Tony
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Garrett, W. E.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Woof, Robert


Ginsburg, David
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)



Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Morris, John (Aberavon)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Moyle, Roland
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Murray, Albert
Mr. J. D. Concannon.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gurden, Harold
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Onslow, Cranley


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Page, John (Harrow. W.)


Bennett, Or. Reginald (Cos. &amp; Fhm)
Hawkins, Paul
Percival, Ian


Biffen, John
Hay, John
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hooson, Emlyn
Ridsdale, Julian


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Iremonger, T. L.
Sharples, Richard


Carlisle, Mark
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Silvester, Frederick


Clegg, Walter
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Costain, A. P.
Jopling, Michael
Tapsell, Peter


Crowder, F. P.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Temple, John M.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Doughty, Charles
Kirk, Peter
Vickers, Dame Joan


Drayson, G. B.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Walters, Dennis


Errington, Sir Eric
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Worsley, Marcus


Gibson-Watt, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.



Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Goodhew, Victor
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Sir Harmar Nicholls and


Grant-Ferris, R.
Murton, Oscar
Sir Charles Taylor.

Ordered,
That Mr. Peter Bessell, Mr. Donald Chapman, Mr. George Darling, Mr. James Hamilton, Mr. Gilbert Longden, Mr. Niall MacDermot, Sir Frank Pearson, Sir David Renton, Mr. Ivor Richard, Mr. G. R. Strauss, and Sir Derek Walker-Smith be Members of the Committee.—[Mr. Peart.]

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; to admit strangers during the examination of witnesses unless they otherwise order; and to report from time to time.—[Mr. Peart.]

Ordered,
That five be the Quorum.—[Mr. Peart.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

7.14 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It has been my privilege in the past two years to introduce a major Housing Act and a major Town and Country Planning Act. It is, therefore, with a great deal of pleasure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I ask the House to turn its attention to the problem of our older houses and to give a Second Reading to the new Housing Bill.
Since the war we have built nearly 6 million new houses, cleared over 850,000 unfit ones in England and Wales, and over 1¼ million old ones have been brought up to date. Great progress has been made. But it has become increasingly clear that it would make good social sense and good economic sense to prevent old houses deteriorating into slums and to avoid, as far as possible, the breaking-up of a well-established, well-integrated community by the clearance and redevelopment of a whole area. Houses which are beyond repair must go as quickly as we can get rid of them. Older houses, which are fit, must be modernised and repaired and then kept in repair.
While we improve the houses, so, too, must we improve the environment around them. It is not enough to give the housewife a sparkling new stainless steel sink with constant hot water, if her only view from the kitchen window is one of smoky, treeless dereliction and decay. We must heal the wounds of the Industrial Revolution and give a facelift to the scarred industrial areas which made so great a contribution to our national wealth.
When my father moved the Second Reading of the Housing Act, 1930, he referred to a great Lancashire Member, John Bright, as having said that
the nation in every country dwells in the cottage.

I believe that every hon. Member would subscribe to that view, and it is that philosophy which underlies the Measure that I am commending to the House.
While continuing with a big programme of new housebuilding, we have in the Bill an opportunity to tackle effectively the problem of over 1¾ million unfit houses in England and Wales and 4½ million which, though not unfit, need repair or lack the basic amenities. In doing so, we shall make a real contribution to human happiness.
I do not wish to give the impression that nothing much is being done about older houses at present. Since this Government came into office over 280,000 families in England and Wales have been moved out of unfit houses which have been demolished or closed. Over 580,000 improvement grants have been approved during the same period. So there has been steady progress on both fronts. But that is not enough. We organised a national sample survey in 1967, the first time that an attempt had been made to judge, on a consistent, country-wide basis, what the state of the nation's houses really was. It was, I am afraid, much worse than the returns previously sent in by local authorities had led us to believe.
What then must we do? The answer is as easy to give in words as it is difficult to carry out in practice. More of the houses which can be saved must be saved; those which are beyond saving must be got rid of more quickly. We spelt this out in greater detail in the White Paper published in April last year, "Old Houses into New Homes". That statement of Government policy, I am glad to say, had an almost universally warm welcome, and the continuing consultations that we have had with the local authorities and other interests concerned have confirmed us in the view that we are going in the right direction, though no doubt we have much to learn and to improve as the Bill goes through Parliament and as further experience is gained afterwards on the ground.
The legislation is the bare bones of our subject, and it is important that these bones should be right. But the human aspect of this problem is something we must remember at every step. The idea of continuing to live year after year without basic amenities, which could often


be provided at no great expense, is totally unacceptable at this period of our history. Older people may have got used to a settled way of life, and in many cases it would be wrong to disturb them, but we should do everything we can to see that children and young people are brought up in better than "sub-standard" conditions.
I have already said that the houses which are too far gone must be got rid of quickly, but there are very good human reasons—leaving aside the economic ones—for saving and improving those that are still worth it. It is remarkable how much attraction many older areas have for their inhabitants. They are familiar, and their friends live there. Slum clearance means disruption, scattering, and beginning again. This is not a plea to slow down slum clearance—far from it; it is a plea that wherever possible we should step in well before slum clearance is necessary—10 or 20 years before—and give suitable areas a longer span of life.
Many of these areas are old-fashioned, but they are quiet and near the centre of the town. People like them, and would like them still more if the houses were improved and repaired, and if the environment was made more attractive. So once again, there is an important human element here.
Turning now to the provisions of the Bill, in Part I we have made the system of improvement grants simpler and more flexible, and have increased the grant limits very substantially, as we promised in the White Paper. This part of the Bill replaces in a single comprehensive code, provisions which are scattered at present through a number of statutes. The owners will still have to find half the money for improvements—and that is only right—but subject to that, the discretionary grant limit goes up from £400 to £1,000, the conversion grant from £500 to £1,200 and the normal full standard grant from £155 to £200. Local authorities will have to find the other half and of this half, three-quarters will be contributed by the Minister.
So the Minister contributes on the basis of three-quarters of a half—that is, three-eights towards private improvement costs. In the same way he contributes on the basis of three-quarters of a half, or three-eights,

towards the improvement costs of local authorities or housing associations working with local authorities. The cost limits are similar.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Clause 5 refers to
£1,000, or such other amount as may be prescribed …
Does that mean that the Minister has power to vary this figure of £1,000 if building costs continue to increase?

Mr. Greenwood: It is possible to vary it to meet the situation to which the hon. Gentleman refers, or in special cases it may be desirable that ad hoc limits should be applied.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman made a slip of the tongue. In referring to houses other than local authority houses, I understood him to say that the other half would be found by the local authority. I wonder whether he meant that.

Mr. Greenwood: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. It should really be that the other half comes out of public funds. The local authority will make the grant, and three-quarters of the half which the local authority contributes will be paid by the Minister. I hope that that clears up the right hon. Gentleman's doubt.
In addition, the Minister may contribute to the approved costs of buying property for conversion or improvement as well as the costs of the work. This extends to local authorities the help that I was able to give to housing associations in the Housing Subsidies Act, 1967. and it increases the limit per dwelling provided from £2,000 to £2,500 for both authorities and associations. There is power to go even beyond this in special cases or special classes of case.
In a number of ways, which we can consider in more detail in Committee, we are making the code simpler and more flexible. I mention at this stage, however, the special grants for improvement of houses in multiple occupation. We do not expect the volume of work under these special grants to be great, but it is important that local authorities should not only be able to control these bad conditions more effectively, but also be


able to give some help towards relieving them.
There will also be more help for repair work done in connection with improvement. For this purpose Clause 31 defines improvement as including
such repairs and replacements as are either incidental to some other improvement or needed … for the purpose of making the other improvement fully effective.
Under Clause 74 local authorities will be able to lend money for improvement work which will be repayable only at the end of a fixed period, or, for instance, on the sale of the house, and, under Clause 75, to act as the owner's agents in carrying out improvements.
As we said in the White Paper, we want improvement of houses to take place more in whole areas than it has done up till now, and not just in scattered houses. The environment can make or mar the quality of life in an area, and can enhance or diminish the value of the houses there. That is why we are proposing, for the first time, grants for environmental improvement. But here let me beg for a realistic outlook. We want such environmental improvement as will encourage and make worth while the improvement and proper maintenance of the houses. It is to be ancillary to that. We have not enough money to turn all our older areas into the hanging gardens of Babylon. At this stage I shall simply stress how much can be achieved by providing playgrounds and open spaces with a few seats, by stopping through traffic, by improving the pavements and street furniture, and by planting trees and flower beds—and all for a fairly modest expenditure to which the Government will contribute.
We are proposing to wind up the "improvement area" powers of the 1964 Act, which have, I am afraid, not proved very successful in practice. Instead, we want something different—powers that can be used more informally and more simply; powers that can be used to the greatest possible extent by persuasion and co-operation, with compulsion only as a very last resort; powers that go to the whole area, including the environment. These are the sort of powers which Part II of the Bill aims to give, and which will call for a major exercise in public relations and public participation on the

part of every local authority which takes advantage of them.
Hon. Members will notice at the outset that the declaration of a general improvement area does not require the Minister's confirmation. The authority's purpose is, after all, to improve the whole area, not to clear or redevelop it. To have an inquiry and confirmation procedure therefore would be an unnecessary piece of ministerial control, and it would have two definite disadvantages. First, it would pile up on the Minister's doorstep a volume of proposals which could cause great delay. Secondly, it would tend to result in a rigid plan, which could not be varied without another formal procedure. We want just the opposite—the least possible delay, and plans which can be adapted and varied in the light of experience and of local knowledge and circumstances.
The Bill gives a clear lead on what I have just referred to as the public relations aspect of the exercise. When a general improvement area is declared, details must be published. In addition to the resolution and the map of the area, the Council must make available for inspection the report on the area which it has had from its officers, or from consultants, or both acting together. Then it has a duty to tell the people who live in the area what it intends, and what help people can get in improving their houses. This is most important: the authority must get the message of improvement across to the people it is going to affect; it must be receptive to their citizens' wishes and ideas, and be ready to modify its proposals if necessary in the light of them. It is two-way public relations that we want to see.
Authorities are given wide powers to do work and buy land, including houses, for the various purposes of area improvement. Compulsory purchase powers can be used but any Order made by an authority has to be confirmed by the Minister or Secretary of State before it becomes effective. I have already said on more than one occasion that persuasion and voluntary action must be the guiding principles in general improvement areas and that compulsory powers should be used only as a last resort.
I now want to be more specific and to say quite clearly and bluntly that Orders will not be entertained if they


show a harsh or unconscionable use of the powers. What I particularly have in mind are cases where some internal improvement is lacking—say, a bathroom—and the house, which is otherwise satisfactory, is owned by an elderly couple who do not want to have such an improvement. Again, I might instance the case of a quite fit occupied house which it is proposed to acquire for some marginal environmental improvement.
I am certain that most local authorities would not consider using compulsory powers in such cases, and in other cases where—although we cannot write into the Statute all possible combinations of circumstances—the use of the powers would be harsh or unconscionable. If, however, there are any authorities who think otherwise, I must tell them now that Orders will not be confirmed in such cases. I am making this statement in agreement with the Secretary of State for Wales, who is every bit as determined as I am to see that these powers are used moderately and humanely.
Part III of the Bill relates to the policy about rents set out in the White Paper. Of all the parts of the policy and the Bill, this has received the longest and most careful and anxious thought, because the Secretary of State for Wales and I know that some of my hon. Friends are unhappy about it, and we certainly do not treat their criticisms lightly.
We propose in Part III that a fair rent under the rent regulation system introduced by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Health and the Social Services should be chargeable where a house is in what the White Paper called the "required state". The Bill calls it the "qualifying conditions", and sets out what these are. The house must be provided with all the standard amenities for the exclusive use of its occupants; it must be in good repair, having regard to its age, character and locality—disregarding internal decorative repair; and it must be in all other respects fit for human habitation.
I will now describe briefly what happens when a house let on a controlled tenancy is improved under the Bill, and later I will come to those which are already in an improved state. Here, let me interpose that there are believed to be about 1·5 million houses let on controlled

tenancies in England and Wales. Of those, perhaps 200,000 are worth improvement and repair, and another 200,000 are already in improved state.

Mr. Lubbock: These figures were given to me in a recent Parliamentary Answer. In total the figure for England and Wales was 1,550,000, but that was as at December, 1967. Can the right hon. Gentleman give some indication about the rate at which controlled properties are being transferred into the regulated sector or into owner-occupation since December, 1967, and how he thinks the trend will move in the future?

Mr. Greenwood: I doubt whether precise figures can be given but generally speaking the number of controlled let-tings is diminishing each year by about 10 per cent. That means that some controlled houses are being demolished under clearance schemes and others for road widening and other purposes. Others of course are moving into rent regulation.

Mr. Evelyn King: The right hon. Gentleman keeps referring to houses. Does he mean dwellings?

Mr. Greenwood: Yes. Technically the hon. Member is quite right, but I find the use of the word "dwelling" a rather unsympathetic and unattractive way of referring to somebody's home. If the hon. Member would like me to refer to dwellings I will, but I would much sooner call them houses or homes—or flats, if driven to it.
Of the 1·5 million houses, perhaps 200,000 are worth improvement and repair and another 200,000 are already in an improved state. I mention these figures because I want the House to keep the aspect of the Bill in perspective. This is the procedure. The landlord will first seek approval from the local authority for the works he proposes. The local authority will tell him, when approving, whether these works will, if properly carried out, enable the house to fulfil the qualifying conditions. If so, he will then seek from the rent officer a certificate saying what the fair rent will be if those works are done.
The tenant will be consulted by the rent officer and the tenant's consent to the work must be given or confirmed after he has been informed what rent will result. If the consent of a statutory


tenant is not forthcoming the landlord can apply to the county court for an order to enter and do the work.
The court, in deciding whether or not to make such an order, must consider all the circumstances, including any disadvantage to the tenant, his accommodation while the work is being done, and his means in relation to the new phased rent. This provision has been included so that the court will have full power—which I am sure it will exercise—to give consideration to the tenant's circumstances and not allow something which will be a disadvantage rather than a benefit to him, or which he cannot afford.
Under Schedule 3 increases of rent on a change from rent control to regulation will be phased over five annual stages; increases of rent in regulated tenancies following grant-aided improvements will be phased over three annual stages.
I now turn to controlled tenancies where the basic amenities already exist. We believe that there may be 200,000 of these. They, too, will qualify for rent regulation if they meet the conditions, and there will be a right of appeal to the county court on the question whether the conditions are satisfied.
We cannot, however, afford to see the primary purpose of the Bill—namely, further new improvement work—take second place because the time of the rent officer is pre-empted for those houses already improved. Therefore, we are requiring these landlords to wait for rent regulation as follows: houses with rateable value of £90 or more in London, or £60 or more elsewhere will come forward for regulation on 1st January, 1971; those with rateable values of £60-£90 in London or £40-£60 elsewhere will come forward on 1st July, 1971, and those with values of less than £60 in London or less than £40 elsewhere will come forward on 1st January, 1972.
That, in bare outline, is the way in which this part of the Bill will work. I want now to discuss the objection of many of my hon. Friends, which, I can assure them, the Secretary of State and I have thought about long and anxiously. They think it is wrong to take improved houses out of rent control. The Bill, on the other hand, embodies the principle of a fair rent for a decent house accepted

by Parliament when the 1965 Rent Act was passed. The reason is that we want to provide the necessary incentive—at present lacking—to get improvable tenanted houses improved, and the necessary means to maintain them in good repair when they have been improved.
Only a minority of the "controlled" houses are still improvable. As I have said, we estimate tentatively that about 200,000 are already in a fair state, though some of these may need substantial repair, and perhaps another 200,000 will be worth improving. About two-thirds of the 1½ million controlled houses are probably already unfit. This is the condition of our controlled houses, and this is, in some measure at least, a consequence of the present rent structure
Let me remind hon. Members what controlled rents are: they are basically twice the 1939 letting value of the house. They have not moved at all since 1957, while costs in general and repair costs in particular have been steadily moving up. Indeed, during this time average male earnings have nearly doubled, and the cost of repairs has increased by over two-thirds.
There seems little doubt that these 1957 rent levels have meant in many cases that repairs have been neglected. I had a case only a week ago of an old lady in my constituency who owned two rent-controlled houses. The tenants of each pay 10s. 6d. a week in rent. She has just spent £40 on repairs and is now faced with spending a further £25 or £30. I am not suggesting that this elderly lady is representative of all landlords, but she is certainly representative of many of them.
I have been studying five published surveys of private landlords—"Housing in Transition" by Professor Cullingworth, "Private Landlords in England" by John Greve; the Milner Holland Report; "The Deeplish Study" sponsored by the Ministry of Housing; and the Fair Rent Associations' "Two Million Homes at 17s. a week" by Stephen Rosenberg. I think the House will agree that these five surveys are broadly based, and inevitably they show disparities. Taken together however they probably give a broadly accurate picture. I can perhaps summarise them best by saying that they show a range


of individual landlords owning one rented dwelling as being between 61 per cent. and 78 per cent. of all landlords. And the proportion of individual landlords who are elderly ranges from 39 per cent. to 63 per cent. In these circumstances it is clear that there are real difficulties for many landlords in the way of getting the necessary repairs done and thenceforward keeping the property in a good state.
Hon. Members will recall that I have refused to make an order under Section 8 of the Rent Act, 1968, bringing blocks of controlled tenancies into regulation without regard to the condition of the property. That is why I come back to the principle I have already stated—a fair rent for a decent house, with the basic amenities, and kept in good repair. Unless it is in the required condition there will be no question of moving into regulation.
Any increases in rent for controlled tenants will normally be phased over five annual stages where there is a move over from control to regulation, and in this way sharp increases of rent in any one year will be avoided as far as possible. There is also a three year phasing following grant-aided improvements where the tenancy is already regulated. We have in fact gone to great lengths to protect tenants.
Some of my hon. Friends have suggested to me that even this is too favourable to the landlords of property already in a good state, but it is difficult to imagine that further money is going to be spent on maintaining houses which are already improved if the landlords are not treated the same as those who have still to carry out improvements.
We have not put forward these proposals without thinking of possible alternatives—for instance, to take the most obvious one, a larger percentage of the landlord's costs than 12½ per cent. to be chargeable as extra rent. Even then, however, the resulting rent would bear no relation to the value of the premises. Sometimes it might mean a higher rent than under the Bill. And the tenants of the most badly neglected houses would be faced with the biggest rent rises. Expenditure of £1,000 by the landlord, for example, would put up the rent by £125

a year, even if the percentage remained at 12½ per cent.
Others have suggested the municipalisation of all rented property. The House will not be surprised to learn that I have a great deal of sympathy with this, and if we had been returned in 1955 it would have been the perfect solution. But here and now I do not believe that it is practicable, because local authorities in general would not be willing to take over all such property. If they did take it over they could not begin to cope with the management problems involved, and the increase in public expenditure would be very much greater. Instead of only 50 per cent. of the cost of the policy coming out of public funds it would mean that 100 per cent. would do so. And that is a charge which we cannot face in existing circumstances. Local authorities do, however, have certain powers to buy houses where it is necessary to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) put forward an interesting idea in our debate last Thursday—that we should give the tenants of private landlords the right to buy their houses. It would certainly introduce a large new element into this Bill if it could be brought within its scope, and I suspect that a great many controlled landlords would be only too glad to sell if the controlled tenants were willing to buy.
The Secretary of State and I have been turning my hon. Friend's idea of compulsory purchase over in our minds, but I know that he will not expect us to have come to a conclusion about it at this stage. But I should like to ask him to develop one or two points. How, for instance, would he ensure that needed improvements were carried out as a result of the transaction? At what valuation could the house be bought? And how could we be certain that a controlled tenant was not buying simply in order to sell again with vacant possession? Again, what effect would this extension of owner-occupation have on the supply of rented accommodation? I hope that my hon. Friend, with his great experience in these matters—I know the warmth and sincerity of his views—will have an opportunity later in the debate to deal with some of the obstacles which I foresee.

Mr. W. S. Hilton: My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) unfortunately has another engagement tonight and has asked me to apologise for his absence. But is it not the case that, even today, when mortgages are given by private building societies, there is often a preliminary contract which the mortgagee must sign, undertaking to put the house in a certain state of repair, and that there would be no difficulty in that direction?

Mr. Greenwood: That may be one of the answers which my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford had in mind. I had not realised that he was not sitting behind me—and I have no doubt that, in Committee, we shall be able to go further into some of the suggestions and possibly some of the answers to the questions which I have asked.
At this stage we are only too willing to listen to, and consider, any alternatives or additions to the rent proposals in the Bill. We must, however, consider them in the light of one basic question. Will they provide the means and the incentive to get improvements done in tenanted houses, and to enable these houses to be maintained properly afterwards?

Mr. Frank Allaun: My right hon. Friend is talking about incentives. Does he not admit that this part of the Bill will mean increases in rent of 300 to 400 per cent. in many cases? In view of that, will not the Bill, far from providing acceleration, actually bring the whole process to a halt, because tenants will resist? Even if we introduce compulsory powers through the court, surely no one will operate them if it means quadrupling a tenant's rent in this way?

Mr. Greenwood: I read my hon. Friend's interesting letter in today's Times and have heard him put this point of view before. I do not necessarily accept all his figures, but from his letter, in which he refers to an extra 7s. a week for a bathroom, I came to the conclusion, basing it on the 12½ per cent. increase that a landlord can now charge on the capital investment that he has made, that this would mean that the cost of the bathroom shared between the local authority

and the owner would be about £290. Seven shillings would mean an increase of £18 4s. a year. If the owner had borrowed the money with which to do the work, he would have to pay about £14 10s. interest on the money borrowed, leaving £3 14s. a year, subject to tax, out of which to repay the loan and meet the costs of repair. I ask my hon. Friend to look at the difficulties of what he proposes as well as pointing out the difficulties in the proposals which we are advancing.
Part IV of the Bill carries out the White Paper proposals to improve the control of multiple occupation; the changes are mainly matters of detail, but there is an important power to exercise control before the degree of occupation becomes excessive. In discussing this, I hope that we shall always remember that this is a matter of degree. Excessive occupation or, if you like, over-use of a house, is one of the worst housing evils; but some sharing, as we should all recognise, is no evil at all.
I now turn to compensation for slum clearance. The Bill fulfils the intention which we set out in the White Paper to pay a supplement to owner-occupiers of unfit houses which are closed or pulled down, so as to bring their compensation up to full market value instead of site value. This will operate where action started after 23rd April, 1968, the date of the announcement in the White Paper. The general rule is that the owner must have been in occupation for two years, or during the whole period since 23rd April, 1968, if under two years, when the Order is made. But the precise terms will be seen in Part V and the Fifth Schedule. The House will agree, I think, that this is a very long overdue reform.
Part IV also brings payments for good maintenance up to four times the rateable value of the house, subject to the detailed provisions of Schedule 4, and a further proposal, not made in the White Paper, is introduced; namely that, where only the interior, or only the exterior, of a house has been well maintained, a payment based on half the full rate for the whole house should be payable.
There are some important provisions in Part VI—and I apologise for taking up so much time. The first of them is the wider duty in Clause 71 for local authorities to review their districts with a view


to deciding what to do about the unsatisfactory houses. This is one of the important changes we are asking the House to make, and it signifies a radical change of emphasis.

In Clause 72 there is a small but important addition to the criteria of unfitness—"internal arrangement"—which would cover, for instance, a dangerous staircase design, or a W.C. opening directly out of a kitchen.

There is also in Part VI the extended power of serving repair notices, in Clause 73. The power which is thus extended is the long-standing power of local authorities to serve repair notices, under Section 9 of the Housing Act, 1957. There is a right of appeal to the county court against such notices, and this would apply to the Clause. The difference we are making is this: the authority will be able to call for repairs before the house becomes unfit for human habitation. At the same time, it will not be able to act unless substantial repairs are required. It is important, in our view, that authorities should be able to act in good time where disrepair is becoming serious, especially as we are proposing to put so much public money into improvement and repair. The money would be wasted if houses were allowed to fall into disrepair afterwards.

We have included Clause 78—the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) will welcome this—to fulfil our promise that we would make it clear that genuine service charges, etc., do not rank as rent when considering what is a "tenancy at a low rent" for the purposes of the Rent Act. This should allay the doubts which have been expressed—though never tested in the courts—on this point, and I hope that everyone who is affected will accept the publication of the Clause as a sufficient assurance for business purposes. The House will see that the Clause declares that the exclusion now expressly stated shall be deemed always to have had effect.

The White Paper listed in its summary 25 proposals. Every one of these has been carried into the Bill. But the Bill will be only the beginning of a very long haul for the Government and the local authorities. Expenditure will gradually increase, but by the time we are spending big sums, in the housing sense of the term, I believe that the balance of supply

and demand in many parts of the country will enable this shift of emphasis to take place. When these opportunities open out, we must not just be starting on the road to a better improvement policy, but must be already pushing ahead with such a policy. In any case, there is a great deal that can be done straight away. I want to see every authority tackle one or more areas when the Bill passes.

I hope, therefore, that the House will give a welcome to this Bill, and to the policy it is designed to serve, of saving the older houses and older housing areas that can still be saved, and enabling us to clear the slums, with less opposition and therefore with greater speed. In this way every one of us will have made a really worth while contribution to improving the quality of life in our country and we shall be able to quote, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales did recently in a speech in Cardiff, the words of the Prophet Isaiah:
And they shall build the old houses, they shall raise up the former desolation and they shall repair the waste cities, the desolation of many generations".

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Peter Walker: The whole House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his detailed explanation of what is certainly a very important Bill.
The object of the Bill is to tackle the problems of houses in need of repair and improvement, and I am sure that hon. Members in all quarters of the House will be anxious for the Bill to reach the Statute Book in order to improve the housing conditions of people living in low-standard accommodation. It will be a very successful Act of Parliament towards that end.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that when the Bill goes into Committee we on these benches will tackle it in a constructive manner in an endeavour to assist in the main theme and objective of the Bill which is to improve these deteriorating houses in which something approaching one-third of our population are living at present.
Most people who have any necessity to consider social problems will agree that housing is more fundamental than any other form of social service and social aid, and that probably a great


deal of delinquency and difficulty which we have in our cities is associated more with housing than with any other cause. I therefore welcome any measures which will assist in this task.
Before dealing with the two major themes of the Bill—the improvement grants and the change in the basis of rents—I should like to refer to one or two minor matters to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in the latter part of his speech. On Clause 78, concerning leases and high services charges, although I agree that the Bill states categorically that the whole position will be back-dated, I feel that there will be large numbers of solicitors who will advise clients not to buy such properties until the Bill becomes law. It is, after all, prudent for any solicitor to say to a client, "At the moment this is the position. There is a Bill before Parliament and, if I were you, I would not purchase such a property until it becomes law."
So far as I know, there has been no disagreement expressed from either side of the House on Clause 78. Therefore, I suggest that because quite a few people are suffering from the present situation, particularly in London where many men and women are in difficulty, perhaps because of their job or a death in the family, and cannot dispose of their property, the Minister might take this Clause out and introduce it as a one-Clause Bill. We would let it go through on the nod, without any amendment, so that it could reach the Statute Book speedily without creating any difficulty in Parliamentary time. I hope the Government will consider that suggestion. There is, I believe, a procedure called a Second Reading procedure, and it would eliminate a degree of human suffering which neither side of the House wishes to see.
As to the slum clearance provisions, I am delighted that the Government have decided to ensure that proper compensation is paid to the owner-occupier. There is no doubt that some poverty-stricken families have been hard hit by the existing provisions, and I am sorry that they have not been amended. I wonder whether in Committee we could look at some of the problems involved in terms of inadequate professional advice. Last Thursday we referred to the

Land Commission in this context. We should bear in mind that the type of people concerned frequently do not have the necessary means to obtain the best professional advice in order to settle the price. Would it be possible to introduce into the Bill an element of legal aid whereby a person living in slum property and not knowing a firm of solicitors or assessors could negotiate with the local authority and obtain a proper professional valuation? I shall raise this matter in Committee.

Mr. John Fraser: Lest people become unduly alarmed by what the hon. Gentleman has said, would he confirm that it is the general practice of local authorities to pay the legal costs and surveyors' fees in these instances, so that people are not entirely without aid when slum property comes to be sold?

Mr. Walker: I was thinking more in terms of what happens after the negotiations have taken place. It is an undoubted fact that many people do not obtain the proper professional advice in these circumstances. If it was well known that they could obtain this advice, that would be a welcome move; and perhaps something along these lines could be incorporated in the Clause. I know that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) agrees with the line I am pursuing. I assure him that I have no wish to frighten people. I am merely drawing attention to a genuine problem that exists.
In Committee we shall also wish to look carefully at Clause 23 because it carries important powers affecting the individual. I am always somewhat unhappy about provisions which give powers to authorities and which use words like "substantial" and "reasonable". These words have an important bearing on the Clause and I hope that in Committee the Government will explain what they consider to be substantial and reasonable in this connection. Phraseology of this kind often gives rise to disputes in law.
In coming to the part of the Bill which concerns improvements grants, it is worth noting, first, that the Government policy of making improvements in improvement grants is slightly in contradiction with another Government policy. I refer to the Government having lowered the amount of money available for local


authority mortgages. A great many older properties depend on local authorities providing mortgages. The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) pointed out in a letter to The Times this morning that he wished to see a formula by which tenants could purchase property. He will be aware that mortgages of that type would need to come from local authorities.
Whereas the Government have substantially reduced the amount of money available for these mortgages—in practice, there has been a reduction in local authority mortgage money of about £140 million a year, which means that these mortgages are now running at about this amount less than they were when the Labour Party came to power—the finance which local authorities have provided for older property has assisted people greatly, and has also helped them to improve those properties.
It is worth noting the importance of this matter in connection with Section 43 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1958, which enables mortgages to be made to the owners of twilight houses to cover that part of improvement costs which is not covered by improvement grants. A person buying one of these older properties and wishing to make improvements will seek that money not under the improvement grant provisions but under the provisions of the 1958 Act. By that means he can obtain a local authority mortgage which takes into consideration improvements of that kind. With local authorities being virtually denuded of funds, this important element of improvement is bound to suffer. I hope that the Government recognise that while improvements in improvement grants are important and will help the problem with which we are concerned, the lowering of the amount of money available for local authority mortgages only aggravates the problem which we are trying to solve.
There is obviously scope for improving improvement grants, bearing in mind Government policies like S.E.T., devaluation and the import surcharge. These and other Government actions have resulted in improvement grants needing to be improved. This improvement is welcomed and I hope that the grants will be used to the fullest extent. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that as

much publicity as possible should be given to the availability of the grants and improvements.
Another difficulty in this matter is the question of the use of these grants by housing associations and housing societies. These organisations are making an important contribution to our housing problem. Both the non-profit-making housing societies and housing associations are doing a good job and hon. Members who have come in contact with their work will have been impressed by the spirit of the movement. Here again, however, they are in desperate need of mortgage money as well as the finances of improvement grants. I know of a successful cost-rent housing society in the North-West which is at present having to slow down its activities because it has found it impossible to obtain the long-term finance it requires.
This brings me to the most controversial part of the Bill—taking out of control a large number of rented properties. J listened to the right hon. Gentleman with great interest. The important and significant fact is that he clearly acknowledges that rent control has been and is a major cause of bad housing and housing decay. He clearly recognises, having held office for some time and having obviously studied all the reports he has received from differing political viewpoints on this topic, that rent control has been a major cause of housing decay. This is a significant factor.
There is a genuine Socialist solution to this problem. It is to take away the private landlord completely and have only publicly-owned rented property. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman is a Leftwing Socialist and would no doubt like to take that course. That Socialist solution, however, is not, in the judgment of the Government, available. No matter how much hon. Gentlemen opposite might like to apply that solution—many of them would because they consider that no private profit should be made out at housing; I can understand how a dedicated Socialist would argue that way—they must accept the pronouncement of the leadership of their party that public funds are not available in the present circumstances to enable such a solution to be pursued.
That being the position, I plead with hon. Gentlemen opposite not to so adhere


to their Socialist principles, particularly since in this case they cannot be achieved, as to see that those who are living in the private rented sector will suffer by the constant decline and dilapidation of their homes. Here is an issue where hon. Members on both sides have the same object in mind. We want to see that people living in bad housing conditions have those conditions improved.
One of the greatest aggravations to the solution of this problem has been rent control at absurdly artificially low levels. Not an hon. Member does not know in his heart that many rents being paid to private landlords today are absurdly and ridiculously low, with the result that the landlord cannot possibly repair and maintain his property at a proper level.
The Minister gave an impressive figure when he said that of all the houses owned by landlords, between 60 per cent. and 70 per cent. of them represented landlords who owned only one house. That figure is bound to increase. We are reaching a phase when many people who purchased houses in the 'twenties and 'thirties will, over the next few years, die and leave their houses to members of their families who already own homes.
Matters should be so arranged that people inheriting property are able to let it to families at reasonable and fair rents. This would make an important contribution to our housing problem because it would make homes available for those who do not wish to buy or who cannot afford to buy. If the political atmosphere is such that landlords must rent at blatantly unreasonably low amounts, those houses will not become available.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Surely where there is a change of tenancy—which is the sort of case the hon. Gentleman has in mind—the house passes from regulation to decontrol.

Mr. Walker: I may have misled the hon. Gentleman. I was putting the case where a person had left a house to his son or daughter. I was saying that I did not want the political atmosphere to be such against the private landlord that everyone would be terrified of taking on such a house and letting it.
Recently, I had discussions with a number of major financial institutions, such as pension funds and insurance companies. I asked, "What contribution could you make with your funds to assisting with a solution of this enormous problem?" I pointed out that about 6 million houses need these improvements. I added that no Government of either side were likely to have the money in the next few years to put what was necessary into solving the problem and that, therefore, I hoped that the great institutions would come in and help.
Surely we can agree across the Floor of the House that we do not want rented property to continue in an atmosphere that, because a person is a landlord, he must be deprived of a proper and decent return on the cost of maintaining that property. That is why I welcome the principles outlined by the right hon. Gentleman. I realise the predicament of hon. Members opposite who genuinely hold Socialist principles.
If such a political outlook continues in housing policy, and the Bill does not succeed because of that, the consequences will be terrible. The provisions designed to encourage improvements in privately rented houses—provisions genuinely put forward by the right hon. Gentleman—could fail, and fail badly, if the political atmosphere continues in which landlords, small or large, are treated badly. Hon. Members opposite will be doing a great deal to help solve the housing problem if they change their attitude on this.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Supposing the tenants are done badly?

Mr. Walker: Another weakness of the Bill—and here I have sympathy with the hon. Member for Salford, East—is that, as at present devised, it cannot do a great deal for the poorest tenants. The large family on the low wage is not going to get the benefit. The father will simply say, "I cannot afford increased rent and I do not want improvements made". In social terms, therefore, one of the great weaknesses of the Bill is that those among the poorest who are not on pension or National Assistance will not have their homes improved and the houses will continue to deteriorate.
This is where be believe that the great social problem of housing is largely concentrated. Many people pay low rents who could pay higher rents. Recently, I spent some time with one of the most famous and successful housing associations in Notting Hill Gate. I spent a day with the remarkable lady who is the manager—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows her. She has been dedicated to this work for years and has converted the worst type of slum property into decent flats and homes for families of different colours. Indeed, if ever there was a successful experiment in multi-racialism, it is provided by some of these housing associations.
In these properties, many people are paying rents which hon. Members opposite might think very high. But the families are happy to pay economic rents in order to live in better property. Given the choice between the squalor in which they lived and paying an economic rent for decent accommodation, they were only too happy to pay an economic rent and bring their children up away from the filth and squalor in which they had to be reared before. A very large number of families can be helped upwards in this way, as the housing associations have proved.
But, of course, the Government are keeping rents artificially low in many cases under the prices and incomes policy, so that many families could not pay higher rent even if they wished. This is absurd. The Government are keeping rents artificially low and are encouraging deterioration. If they want to freeze rents as part of their policy, it is quite wrong to do it in such a way that those who have to manage and repair houses are prevented from doing so properly.
I want to see the general recognition that rent control at a low level only aggravates the housing problem. Having said that, we must also recognise that there is a sector of people who cannot afford to pay proper rents and must be helped, whether in private or in council accommodation. This is where I want to concentrate the assistance. I do not want to see some poor landlords—and there are many poor landlords—having to let their houses deteriorate into squalor because the tenants genuinely cannot afford to pay economic rents.
In Committee, I hope that we will discover an element of agreement. I hope that the Labour Party will at least agree that, in the foreseeable future its objective of having no private landlords and a completely socialist system of property is not obtainable for economic reasons and will agree that therefore we want to encourage as much private investment by institutions as possible in order to assist. I hope that we can create the climate in which both sides will want to help those who are genuinely in need. If we can reach that atmosphere, we shall be doing something which will help to eliminate one of the worst and nastiest social problems in the country.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Hilton: I want to utter a note of caution about Parts I and II of the Bill which neither my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government nor the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) voiced. They have implied that there is genuine and overwhelming support for repairs and improvements to be done in the twilight areas and that most people are prepared to pay economic rents provided improvements are done.
I do not think that there has been any research to prove this. If my right hon. Friend can show me that any such research has been undertaken by the Ministry to show that most tenants are happy to pay for improvements to their property, I am prepared to accept it. Meanwhile, I can only relate my experience as Member for Bethnal Green, part of the Borough of Tower Hamlets, which has the worst slum housing problem in London.
Even under compulsory purchase orders when property is being cleared, the tenants do not wish rehousing by way of re-lets of council house properties. They generally insist that they want new accommodation. To say to many tenants that one is prepared to improve their present property and keep them there another 20 years or so will be far from welcome to them. No matter what one does with some of the houses in the kind of areas mentioned by my right hon. Friend, nothing can be done that will elevate the ceilings or extend the walls. The homes will still be cramped and small. I am not saying this in order to condemn this part of the Bill. Where


possible, we ought to improve accommodation which is worthy of improvement, but there seems to be no cautionary note so far sounded about the expenditure of this money, and if a Member of Parliament has a duty to the House, it is to bring to its attention matters about which he feels strongly.
It must be acknowledged that this Bill provides for up to £2,000 per house from private and public investment, and during this particular economic period, and that between 60 and 80 per cent. of it will be wasted. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] At least it is clear that there is unanimity among hon. Members who are united in their disagreement with me. But it still remains true that bricks and other materials are to be put into houses which will have a life of 20 years. These materials used on new housing would be fully exploited over about 80 years.
Skilled craftsmen in the construction industry are extremely scarce, and this type of improvement work will draw upon skilled craftsmen more than anything else will. If the Minister injects large sums of money into improvement work one of the effects, therefore, will be to drive up the cost of improvements, repairs and maintenance.
It has also been suggested to me that if we do not control this kind of improvement, general development work in many of the older slum areas will be paralysed. Members of the Royal Institute of British Architects have reported to me that already people are objecting to compulsory purchase orders on the ground that the orders deal with areas which could benefit from the Bill. If these sums of money are to be spent on improving properties with a life of only 20 years, such objections will continue to be made and general redevelopment may be held up. I do not condemn this part of the Bill, but say only that the expenditure of this money will have to be carefully controlled and watched by the Ministry if it is not to reap less benefit than was anticipated.

Mr. E. Rowlands: Is not my hon. Friend aware that surveys have shown that the vast majority of people who live in twilight areas want to remain in the areas, that the last thing they want is to have a new council house on the edge of town, but that

they want their houses to be improved? That is the purpose of the Bill.

Mr. Hilton: My own constituency has had surveys of this kind. What I am saying is that, while my constituents wish to remain in the area, they do not wish to remain in the kind of houses which they now inhabit. I am, therefore, sounding a note of caution rather than of condemnation, because I know that in general owner-occupiers, local authorities, co-ownership associations and cost-rent associations welcome the Bill.
However, I have also noted that the Bill has been welcomed by landlords and by the Opposition. When I see those interests united, I always pause to examine legislation with some suspicion. It is not possible for the two sides of the House to unite on an issue like this unless hon. Members opposite are fully aware that a Measure will be generous to landlords.

Mr. Peter Walker: Oh.

Mr. Hilton: The hon. Member disagrees, but on Thursday he was carrying on with the beligerence of an outraged Pekingese in a censure debate, and today he is hanging affectionately round my right hon. Friend's neck and saying what the rest of us should do with our Socialist principles.
The Bill will increase the improvement grant from £400 to £1,000, an increase of 150 per cent. Secondly, £100 may be spent by a local authority in general improvement work in each area, which will automatically improve the value of a property and any rent which may be charged. Thirdly, if a landlord does not have £1,000 to spend on his part of the bargain, the local authority will be asked to loan him the money, a loan on which he will have to pay only interest, the capital sum being assured by the property itself.
I accept that what the hon. Member for Worcester said about low-income families who might object to improvements was said with sincerity, but the Bill takes care of such families, whose landlords are to be given compulsory powers to make them accept repairs and consequent rent increase. The whole essence of the Bill is that property of this type should be made habitable


irrespective of the tenant's wishes, which means that the landlord will be given compulsory powers to walk in and undertake repairs.
In addition, the Bill waives certain conditions which have so far restricted the right of a landlord to claim an improvement grant. One of them has been that a house must have a life of at least 15 years. If this period is further reduced, we shall further reduce the amount by which we exploit the labour and material which is put into improving them.
As a reward to landlords for improving houses, rents will pass from 1957 control into 1965 regulation and many tenants will have the traumatic experience of facing rent increases of between 300 and 400 per cent. Finally, if the landlord is unable to take advantage of these opportunities himself, the local authority is to act as an agent to ensure that he loses none of these benefits.
I took part in the political battles on the 1954 and 1957 legislation with rent control. From that period I have found that landlords have tended to regard hon. Members opposite as their friends and to regard Labour Members as their enemies. After this Bill has been passed, landlords will know that they need have no Tory friends so long as they have Labour enemies who are as generous as we are being with the Bill.
What will it mean in financial terms to landlords who undertake improvement work to obtain a rent increase? My right hon. Friend dealt with my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) in a comment about the unrewarding aspects of putting a bath into a house. Let me deal with what would happen if a landlord were, with these opportunities, to increase his house up to the total £2,000 investment level, implying a contribution of £1,000 from himself. The present law allows a landlord to have an increase for any money invested in the house of 12½ per cent. per year. This means that he would be able to have a rent increase of £2 10s. a week under present legislation if he carried out improvement work costing him £1,000.
What is likely to be the sum which the landlord will receive if the Bill goes through? In the White Paper the Minister gives some indication of his opinion when he says:

The rents chargeable, even with the increase permitted after improvement,"—
that is the present 12½ per cent.—
do not normally provide a sufficient return to encourage landlords to improve their houses.
In other words, what we can be sure about is that the Minister expects that there must be a greater reward than £2 10s., or the landlord will not be willing to invest £1,000 in the house.
I suggest that the Minister is thinking in terms of £3 or £4 a week increase if landlords invest £1,000. What does this mean in detailed terms, as net extenditure to the landlord? If he does not have the £1,000 he can borrow it from the local authority. I do not know what the rate of interest will be in such cases, but supposing it was 8 per cent., the landlord would borrow £1,000 at 8 per cent. which would give him an interest debt payment of £80 a year. Tax relief is given on this, and at the standard rate, he would be able to claim that £80 interest against tax and he would end up paying £47 net a year or 18s. a week to get the loan. For that 18s. a week net outlay the landlord purchases £2,000 worth of improvements, and a rent increase of £3 or £4 a week.

Mr. Peter Walker: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's calculation. As he has deducted tax from the interest, he should now deduct tax from the rent and balance the two out. As he said, these houses will only last about 15 or 20 years. Would he now work out the depreciation from the total amount put in over that 15 years?

Mr. Hilton: The first point is that my calculation on tax is on the basis that the landlord would be able to draw £3 or £4 a week from his tenants to pay the tax.

Mr. Peter Walker: In that case he certainly would not get any rebate on the interest paid, if he is that poor.

Mr. Hilton: The hon. Gentleman's hypothetical point does not obscure the fact that for 18s. a week he gets £2,000 worth of improvements, plus a rent increase of £3 or £4. His next point was to do with depreciation of the house. I understand that the hon. Member has not long been in his housing post. It may be news to him to learn that houses,


far from decreasing in value in post-war years, are increasing at 6–10 per cent. a year, so that the landlord will also have the accrued capital gain from the house.
There is not an investment which the hon. Gentleman knows about, even with his city experience, that will buy for 18s. a week what the landlord will buy with the aid of this part of the Bill. The indignation we hear, even from the few hon. Members opposite who are present, is typical. In the past when Bills have come to the House for public money to be expended for the public good, we have had nothing but opposition from them. When it is public money spent to increase the yield from private investment, there is nothing but Tory approbation for it, and antagonism towards anyone who wishes to deny this.
Part III is rather more objectionable in that it is not only the landlord who carries out improvement work who will receive an increase, but even those who do no work. Under the Bill, they will also be given the facility of having their rents increased from the 1957 control level to the 1965 regulation level. The logic is that if we allow the regulated rent for those landlords who make improvements, we must also give it to those who have kept their houses in a reasonable state of repair. My own interpretation of the situation is that, having made a serious error in relation to one set of landlords who actually do improvement work, the Minister is trying to achieve equity by extending the error to the rest of the landlords. The fallacy of his thinking is that landlords who so far have improved their properties and kept them in a reasonable state of repair have drawn no reward. If they have improved their property they will have received the benefit of the rent increases which are already specified in legislation and in the Consolidation Act of 1968.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) has suggested that people in rented accommodation who were likely to be dealt with under this Part of the Bill should be given the opportunity of becoming owner-occupiers. I said last Thursday that it would be a far more popular measure if the Government were to give tenants of controlled property the £1,000 grant which the landlord was

to have and allowed them to become owner-occupiers. The £1,000 would help to put the properties in a reasonable state of repair.
I do not know why that point was not dealt with by the hon. Member for Worcester because the Opposition have always said that they wish to stimulate owner-occupation. But the argument which we have heard is that it would not be right to give tenants a compulsory right to acquire property owned by their landlords. Yet both Front Bench spokesmen today have said that these properties are albatrosses around landlords' necks which are driving them to penury and that they have no means of getting rid of them. We should put forward a policy which will allow landlords to get rid of them at a reasonable price, and tenants who might have to pay more because they have taken over these properties would have tax relief on the rent which they would pay subsequently. They will have no tax relief if they remain tenants.
This is where I disagree with the hon. Member for Worcester. He spoke about an economic rent and people being glad to pay it. Private tenants are in the worst position of all when it comes to paying rent. They receive none of the subsidies which the tenant of a local authority receives. They receive none of the accrued capital which an owner-occupier receives, nor tax relief on the interest portion of the rent.
It is with a degree of sadness that I and, I believe, some of my colleagues oppose this part of a Bill which we believe will be welcomed, in many ways, by the various authorities which I have mentioned. But there is a lack of equity for tenants of private accommodation who are to be forced to have their properties improved and forced subsequently to pay an increased rent. For owner-occupiers, housing associations and local authorities, the financial provisions in the Bill should be accepted because these are not profit-making organisations and we should distinguish between nonprofit-making organisations and private capital.
But landlords should be given three alternatives. First, if their properties are burdens to them, they should be given the opportunity of selling them to their sitting tenants at a reasonable market


rate and the tenants should then be assisted by the Government's scheme as laid down in the Bill.
Secondly, if landlords wish to take advantage of the Government's scheme and retain control of their properties, they should be allowed only 12½ per cent. return as laid down in the 1968 Act. I would strongly oppose any suggestion that private landlords should benefit from the £1,000 which is contributed from the public purse and from the purse of the tenants in those houses in rates and taxes. That would be a new departure of principle for this House.
The third possibility I suggest to show that I understand the problems which are brought about by rent control and that I realise that it can lead to rents which are uneconomic in that they do not make repair and maintenance a reasonable proposition. In my third category I would say that if a landlord wishes to have his rents pass into regulation, he should accept the onus for improvement entirely on his own capital and that the public purse should not pay anything to help him in that way.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will accept that for my part there is a great deal in the Bill that I would gladly support, and which, I know, other organisations support, but that if we have Socialist principles, as were referred to by the hon. Member for Worcester, we have to have regard to these tenants, who are our people, and try to defend them. Unless we do that by adopting these suggestions, we shall have betrayed our interests. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend seriously to consider what I have said, and possibly in Committee he may be able to help us, as we wish to help him, by taking action along the lines I have suggested.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: My experience differs from that of which the House has just been told by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Hilton) in that I find a good many tenants who are not only willing but anxious, if it could be arranged, to pay the economic cost of the improvement of the property which they occupy.
I felt that the hon. Member was, perhaps, suffering from two contradictory anxieties: he was anxious at the prospect

of money being expended on property which had only a 15-year life, and anxious also about the profit that would accrue to the landlord, in whose hands the property had, apparently, suddenly become of unlimited life. It must be one anxiety or the other for which the hon. Member settles. Nevertheless, one point of resemblance between the hon. Member and myself is that I, too, am substantially critical of the Bill. Indeed, my objections to it are even more radical and thoroughgoing than his.
First, however, I should like to except from my general disapproval particularly Part V of the Bill, which reforms the compensation for compulsory acquisition of owner-occupied property. Indeed, I congratulate the Minister on having had the good fortune to persuade his colleagues, and, presumably, the Treasury in particular, to allow him to enact this Part of the Bill, which carries forward the improvement in terms for the owner-occupier whose property is compulsorily acquired which was brought about many years ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys).
But, apart from Part V and certain minor provisions, I feel that the Bill only adds one stone more to that Tower of Babel which our housing legislation has been over the last 50 years, or, to change the metaphor, that with the Bill the House is taking yet another jar and pour-it into the sieve in the attempt to—what is called—"solve the housing problem".
The legislation of the last 50 years has been accompanied inseparably by the twin phenomena of shortage and squalor. In the debate last Thursday, the Minister for Planning and Land was looking forward to a year not very far distant—1973—when, in his words
the crude national housing shortage should … be over".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1969; Vol. 777, c. 625.]
Alas for such hopes. It was in 1955 that P.E.P. calculated that only another three-quarters of a million additional houses would bring about a balance between demand and supply, and the party opposite, in its pamphlet Homes for the Future, built on that insecure foundation.
Shortage undiminished has been the permanent accompaniment of our experience in these last 50 years. As we have built, and the more we have built, shortage still seems to have pursued us and


been protracted. As for squalor, some of the basic facts are set out in paragraph 4 of the Government's White Paper, and unpleasant reading it is—the paradox of a nation whose standards of living in almost every other conceivable respect have risen in recent decades faster than they had ever risen before but which is still housed in the kind of conditions that the statistics in paragraph 4 reflect.
We talk about housing as if it were one thing; but for the last 50 years housing in this country has been two things. There have been two housing markets and two commodities. There has been the market for houses for owner-occupation, where for practical purposes the market price has ruled for the greater part of the period. There has been the market for housing to let, where the market price has only exceptionally ruled and where rent control and, latterly increasingly, subsidy and public provision have created an entirely artificial market. We have, therefore, two markets and two commodities; and the Bill deals differently with them.
The owner-occupier, under the Bill, receives public money, a grant for the repair and improvement of his property. I must say that, although there is, to put it mildly, precedent for this, I do not believe that there is justification for it. I do not believe that if the owner of property is able to dispose of it at the market price, if there is a free market for the article which he owns in its present state and in its improved condition, there is any justification for the use of public money—which means an imposition, a compulsion, upon the citizens at large—to make it cheaper than it would otherwise be for that owner to enhance the value of his property.
Indeed, I was surprised that this seemed to be one of the features of the Bill which received the support of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, for here indeed the public is invited to put money into a private pocket to enhance the value of an article which this House by its legislation has never depreciated. It is using the power of legislation to determine the free choice of private individuals as to the way in which they will lay out their resources. It seems to me, in short, to be grandmotherly legislation

of the worst description. I do not believe that it can be justifiable to lay the public at large under contribution to make it cheaper than it otherwise would be for owner-occupiers of houses to improve their assets. Let them take their own decision on whether and to what extent they will improve what they own, and accordingly be rewarded by the rise in its market value.
When we come to the other houses, the houses which are rented, the scene is completely different. For 50 years, by rent law and by subsidy, they have been controlled at prices—that is to say, rents—at which for most of the time it was not worth while to add to the total stock, or to improve them, or even, in many cases, to maintain them in repair. We in this House, over these 50 years, by out legislation—and this has been candidly recognised already by all three speakers so far in the debate—have made it difficult, if not impossible, for houses to be repaired, improved, or added to in number, if they were within the rented sector. This is the work of our own hands.
In the White Paper there is a most instructive sentence which throws into sharp relief the paradox of our behaviour. It is in paragraph 25, where the Government are talking about standard amenities. The sentence I have in mind is this:
The Government now take the view that in the age of the refrigerator a ventilated food-store is no longer a basic amenity.
Hon. Members who have been concerned with housing over the years will remember how a ventilated foodstore was one of the characteristics for the fitness or unfitness of a house for which the medical officer of health looked. It was one of the basic characteristics in accordance with which a house was judged fit or unfit for human occupation. Now in 1969, after all these years, the Government say that "in the age of the refrigerator" we need no longer look for that minimum miserable space with the minimum draught blowing through it which has hitherto been regarded as indispensable to the minimum house.
Why has this come about? It has come about, say the Government, because this is "the age of the refrigerator". So into the unimproved house, along with all the other gadgetry of modern times,


there has come the refrigerator. This is "the age of the refrigerator". How fortunate that this House has not legislated in regard to refrigeration as it has legislated in regard to the provision of the house to rent where the refrigerator has now found its place. There would be no question of our living "in the age of the refrigerator"; we should still be living in the age of the ventilated foodstore.
In refrigeration, as throughout the greater part of the standard of living, we have allowed the market price and profit to work together for the benefit of the community at large. The result has been one which would not merely have astonished those 50 and more years ago who drew up the basic specifications for the minimum house, but would have seemed too optimistic to expect 20 or even 15 years ago. The contrast speaks for itself.
Having over so many years made it not worth while to repair or to improve, the Government now come back and prescribe another dose of the very same medicine as has made the patient ill, like "Palmer the Poisoner" coming back with a further dose of strychnine to see the patient into the grave.

Mr. Lubbock: Is my memory at fault, or was the right hon. Gentleman not a member of the previous Government which passed the 1959 Act?

Mr. Powell: I was reasonably sure that some hon. Member would be quick enough to make that point and I have made provision for a section in my speech in which I shall deal with it comprehensively. Meanwhile I am looking at this poison which we are once again having prescribed in this Bill for the umpteenth time—the three elements, subsidy, control and compulsion. They hang together. If one controls the price, one must subsidise new provision. If control and subsidy together do not provide the results one expects, one is drawn on to compulsion.
In this Bill, we have the substantially higher subsidies. Perhaps again the hon. Member for Bethnal Green may be surprised to learn that I am not commending this. I am not approving of improvement grants and subsidies even for the landlords. Not at all. They are as unjustified, though for different reasons, for the landlord of rented houses as they

are for the owner of an owner-occupied house.
Then we come to rents. The rents are to be those which by definition are lower, though no one can say how much lower, than the rents at which supply and demand would balance, even when that which so many hon. Members opposite seem to fear like the plague—the substitution of regulated for controlled rents—has taken place. The rents will be rents assessed upon the conundrum in the 1965 Act. They will be assessed on the assumption that there is no excess of demand over supply on a hypothetical condition such that supply and demand cannot balance, namely, the ignoring of the factor of price altogether. The whole object of the legislation which prescribed them was to ensure that they are less than those at which supply and demand for the accommodation would balance.
Finally, the Government resort, though tentatively, to compulsion. One was glad to hear from the Minister how tentative initially it was to be. However, we have learned from this Government that their tentative compulsion is often rapidly succeeded by less tentative compulsion. This is the extension of the slum clearance principle of compulsory acquisition. Local authorities are given compulsory powers to ensure the doing of that which the rest of our legislation has tended to prevent from being done and make it unprofitable to do.
There is no mystery about the cause of the shortage of housing and the squalor of housing which has been our experience through so many years and which makes housing such a contrast with the rest of the conditions of our people. The cause lies in this House. It lies in the legislation which we and our predecessors have passed through this House for what is now nearly two generations. We and our predecessors have preferred to deceive the electors by pretending to them that they could have that which they needed better if the price of it were controlled below the market price, the price at which the supply and demand for it balanced. Instead of telling them the elementary truth, we have preferred to follow our own interests over those 50 years, and use the housing of our people as an area for the buying of votes. Indeed, it might be said that we and our predecessors in


this House have been supremely selfish in our housing legislation.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) put a question to me which is a fair one. It is one which addresses itself not only to me but to many other right hon. and hon. Members. The question is this: "You yourself have been a member of Administrations which have to their charge legislation in this same tradition. You yourself, if you have not actually proposed it, have, at any rate, acquiesced in it being passed. How can you now come forward in the year 1969 and say that this whole course, which has taken rented housing outside the market, has been a mistake for which the public have been the sufferers?"
I could, if I cared, put together a certain personal defence against that charge. First, I could say that for many years past I have been arguing that rent control and subsidy was a haphazard form of subsidy of wages—"Speenhamland in modern dress", I once remember calling it. Secondly, I could remind the House that I played a minor part in the enactment in 1956–7 of the only comprehensive attempt to raise rents generally towards the market level.

Mr. David Winnick: Rachmanism.

Mr. Powell: Some hon. Gentleman mentioned Rachmanism.

Mr. Winnick: I did.

Mr. Powell: One thing which can be asserted with absolute certainty about Rachmanism, which I take to mean the bullying of tenants to get them out when they cannot be got out by lawful process, is that it depends upon control. It is a black market phenomenon which cannot exist in the absence of control and of rents which are below market level. For Rachmanism I take no responsibility whatsoever.
Thirdly, I could say that for years in my own constituency, both in public and in private, at election time and between election time, I have denounced the two giant evils of housing: rent control and subsidy—the one giant admittedly now shrivelling, but the other still growing in strength and in danger.
I say I could put together some such case in my own defence. But I prefer

not to do so. I prefer to plead guilty, along with the rest, but to ask: just because Parliament and parties for a period of years have been engaged upon a course which has wrought havoc with the interests of those whom they represent, is it impossible, because of that continuing hardened precedent, that they should ever change? I do not believe that it is. I do not believe that, however long a mistaken course is persevered in, it is ever therefore necessarily too late to change it. I believe that we can, because I believe that we should, change. But if we change, we must change not gradually or imperceptibly. The movement from error to truth cannot be a slurred, imperceptible glide. There has to be a definitely marked turning point, at which we acknowledge that one series of policies has failed and must be replaced by another.
We are coming to the end of the time when in this respect, as in many others, the public prefer their politicians to tell them fairy tales. I believe that the public are becoming impatient with their representatives pretending to them that by the enactment of legislation they can make goods and services cheaper than they really are.

Mr. Winnick: The right hon. Gentleman seems to argue the case, which is a well-known Powellite argument, that there should be no security of tenure. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how private tenants could protect themselves in areas of housing shortage against landlords who wish to evict them, in many cases to sell the property, unless there is security of tenure?

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman evidently does not realise the reason why a landlord wants to get rid of a tenant to sell the property. It is, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, because we have made two separate markets in housing: one for houses to own and the other for houses to rent. We are denying the people who want to rent houses the opportunity to get what they want and we are deliberately, as we have been for the best part of 50 years, distorting the market in which people can demand and obtain at its market price—the only way to do so—that which they want. There is no such security of possession of an article as the fact that the article is rented at the market rent.

Mr. Winnick: Should tenants have security?

Mr. Powell: What the hon. Gentleman, like many others, still does not understand is that the greatest security is to be buying or renting at the market price. One cannot have a greater security than that, since there can be no interest on anyone's part in his dispossession.

Mr. Hilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that housing, like any other commodity, such as books and shoes, should be sold at the level of the price of supply and demand? For 50 years all Governments and political parties have said that the difference is that housing is a social necessity, and the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) said so tonight. Is the right hon. Gentleman now saying categorically that housing is no more a social necessity than any other item which is bought and sold?

Mr. Powell: Our social duty is to people. It is to ensure that in respect of this requirement, as of any other, they have the income, and if they do not possess it, have it made up, to secure at the market price the decent minimum.

Mr. E. Rowlands: Mr. E. Rowlands rose—

Mr. Powell: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue; I was asked the question. I say that is where social conscience and community obligation come in: to ensure that there is income to purchase whatever we regard as being the minimum standard of living which should be secured to all in this country.
The hon. Member for Bethnal Green said that for 50 years rented housing had been taken out, or partly taken out, of the market. Look at the consequences. The consequences are that in this one great respect we have lagged behind. While all the other elements in the standard of living have gone leaping ahead with variety, opportunities, and developments which nobody could have forecast or imagined, housing has remained always short, always on the ration, always a potential black market, always with the conditions of squalor which are described in this White Paper. That is the reward,

that is the result, that is the curse, if one likes, which we have brought about by this policy which we have pursued these 50 years, of taking rented housing out of the market.
I believe that the time is coming when people no longer wish to be deceived. It is when they insist on being told the truth that they will have found the only condition upon which they can keep their freedom and regain their self-respect

9.9 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: We have listened to an interesting speech from the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, and, I suspect, the voters in Wolverhampton, I have no desire to go back to the principles to which the right hon. Gentleman adheres, to a world which created the very conditions of squalor from which we have been battling to emerge. Nor do I wish to live in a refrigerator for my future. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I have no mistaken view that every household in this country has a refrigerator, or many of the other valuable additions to the pleasure of our lives.
Unlike the right hon. Gentleman I take a more human view, and welcome the great advances that our communities have made over the years under different Governments. Unlike him, I do not derogate from the real achievements which have resulted in vast numbers of people being able to live in houses in decent conditions which they would not have been able to do had we continued in the kind of society into which the right hon. Gentleman apparently wants to thrust us back—the society that existed in the last century.

Mr. Powell: I ask the right hon. Gentleman to allow me one intervention. Let us go back in imagination to the conditions which prevailed before rent control and housing subsidies were introduced. Let us see how every one of the conditions of life which existed in those times—food, clothing and all the amenities of life—have improved out of all recognition, and let us contrast that with the sluggish improvement in this one factor—the conditions of housing.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The right hon. Gentleman does not convince me, nor will he convince the vast majority of hon. and right hon. Members on either side of the House. We are conscious of the large part played by public provision and public subsidy in ensuring that, difficult as conditions still are for a number of our people who are still anxious to solve their housing problem—and that is what the Bill is about—vast improvements have been made in this field, which have been denied to us had Governments over the last half-century followed the kind of rôle that the right hon. Gentleman apparently now advocates.
I suspect that he knows that in his kind of society the rich and the more powerful would win through and those who, for one reason or another, were weaker, would go to the wall. Although he would make provision through the social services for allowances for some of those in the worst conditions he would impose a rigid demarcation between the two societies—a demarcation from which we are at last struggling to emerge, and from which I hope some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite also wish to emerge.
I welcome the general tenor of the Bill. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I have no desire to break with my past in this matter. I was associated with the introduction of the first Measure for the improvement grant procedure. That was a real benefit. Going about the country I can see houses that, over the years, have benefited from it. I am happy that that should be so because I know that not only the houses but the people living in them have benefited.
I am glad that we are to make the great move forward that is provided for in the Bill. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Hilton), who is worried about the balance between the resources we put respectively into new house building and improvement. I realise that there is a problem, but my hon. Friend is mistaken in thinking that we do not need to go forward with improvements—

Mr. Hilton: Does not my hon. Friend agree that what I said was not to condemn the expenditure but to urge great caution in the use of this money, in order to ensure that we exploited those areas

which could most profitably be improved by this grant?

Mr. Blenkinsop: I realise that, but my hon. Friend put his anxieties in such sharp terms as to give the impression to most of us that he opposed the kind of balance which the Bill would strike. That, also, I think was the point of his intervention.
There is a vast field—I am sure that this is a majority view—in which improvements are urgently needed to old property. The fact that houses are old does not necessarily mean that they cannot be effectively and usefully made available as homes for large numbers of our people—not only older people who do not want to move, but also for younger families, for whom a wider range of choice is needed. It is not true that everyone wants to move into a new house. Rather the opposite: I think that a large proportion of both younger and older people would prefer to have the choice between staying in an area they know at a somewhat reduced price and the high cost of obtaining a completely new home. We should ensure that those choices are available: that is one reason why I welcome the Bill.
It is surely wasteful to clear away property which can be made into good, habitable homes, provided, of course, that improvements are effectively done, not only to the property itself but—I am delighted that the Bill makes this provision—also to its environment. This is the first time that we have considered that problem. I doubt whether the provision of £100 per house is adequate for the kind of changes which I hope that we will try to make in the environment, but I welcome the fact that, for the first time, this provision has been made.
I accept that there are dangers. One is lest we should stop important comprehensive redevelopment schemes in the older parts of some of our towns where they are clearly needed, and that, if we concentrate too fully on improvement work, some of these schemes may be shelved for too long.
I accept, too, that we must be careful not to waste money on bad property and I take my hon. Friend's point that, if we allow—as the Bill would—provision for improvement of property which


may not have a 15-year life, this could be dangerous, but I am sure that it is right to give greater flexibility in the use of grants. There has been a rather absurd position in the past of our not being absolutely sure whether the period of life will be 15 years or a little more or less. How often can a local authority or planning authority be sure precisely what the period of life is? It cannot, so this flexibility is right. But we must be careful.
The third point, which he did not make so clearly, but which must be considered, is that we must be sure to have some check on the quality of the improvement work which is done. We can be proud—certainly the builders and others can—that, with the development of the National House Builders' Registration Council and the Government's encouragement in its development, we are getting a higher standard of new house building. It is absolutely right that guarantees should be given here. This has made a great difference to many people buying a new house, but we have no provision of this kind for improvements.
Yet we are moving into a field in which improvements can be considerable. We are not talking about minor improvements, so it is vital to ensure that the improvements done are of as high a quality of workmanship as we are now demanding for new house building.

Mr. Lubbock: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to Clause 6(3) which states:
The payment of an improvement grant or of any part thereof shall be conditional upon the works or the corresponding part of the works being executed to the satisfaction of the local authority.
The Minister is saying that he is trying to give local authorities greater freedom and flexibility. Is not that what the hon. Gentleman is asking for?

Mr. Blenkinsop: I welcome this provision. But I am anxious whether, with the inspectors that the local authorities have available at the moment, it will be possible to supervise this work, knowing as I do the number of firms involved. I do not want to make an unjustified attack on the jobbing builder generally, but there is a danger that we shall have employed in this kind of work people whose quality of work may not be of

the highest kind. We must be careful to avoid that danger. It may be easier to supervise a large new building construction job than to supervise the kind of detailed work which will be involved in all these improvement schemes. These are dangers that we have got to consider carefully as we go along.
Some hon. Members have put their finger on the main anxiety that we all have about this Bill. In spite of all the careful adjustments and efforts that have been made to make this provision for moving from controlled to regulated rent a matter not of one or two years but spread over a period of years so that the problem will not be so severe in its impact on the tenant, it is true, as has been said by the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), that there are many low-paid wage-earners who can be seriously affected. I take the point that this House has to consider whether there is any justification for saying that the elderly and retired person on National Assistance would be able to claim allowances to help pay the increased cost of rent, whereas a man on a low wage and possibly with a family may not be able to make such a claim. This is a matter which we have to consider very seriously—whether some form of housing allowance should not be paid to those with lower earnings to make sure that undue hardship is not imposed on them.
In the past we have rejected this, certainly on this side of the House, as paying public money into the hands of the landlord without any check at all on the rent that the private landlord was able to charge. But today it is slightly misleading to many people if we say that we are proposing to remove control. As was pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman, control is retained, even if in another form. By the regulated rent which was provided for under the 1965 Act, however much some of my colleagues may dislike its operation in London, Birmingham and certain other parts of the country, a limitation is placed on the rent which otherwise the landlord could charge. I welcome that fact. If it were not for that, the sky would be the limit. The right hon. Gentleman would welcome it, but I am sure that few other people would welcome it.

Mr. Powell: Not the sky—the market.

Mr. Blenkinsop: In certain areas the market would be the sky.

Mr. Powell: No.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Our experience in the past under the 1957 Act, for which the right hon. Gentleman holds some responsibility, has taught us that this meant severe hardship to many people who were driven out of their homes because of the operation of the market. I am not a believer in the operation of the market. I know too well of the hardship and tyranny that it can impose on people. I am delighted that my hon. Friends do not accept that thesis and that we reject the sort of demands that are made by some hon. Gentlemen opposite.
We have rightly provided in the Bill for a new improvement area procedure to speed up the operation of improvement works. However, I am not altogether happy about the way in which we have thrown overboard the means that were available under the 1964 Act for local authorities to carry out work and charge it afterwards to the landlord. I would have preferred an alternative procedure which local authorities could have applied if they wished.
I naturally share my right hon. Friend's desire that local authorities should use their compulsory purchase powers in suitable circumstances. There are cases, however, where the old provisions of the 1964 Act could have been made more fully operative. I share with some of my hon. Friends a desire to provide tenants who wish to do so an opportunity to buy. I should be happy to see a provision of this sort on the Statute Book, although I recognise that if a tenant were given this opportunity and had the necessary grants provided for him, we might find ourselves back in the same position; the tenant could become the new landlord and so realise the capital value of the grants he had received.
We in the North of England have a large problem resulting from what we call upstairs-downstairs flats. Frequently the owner lives in one part of the premises and lets off the other part to a tenant. Many of these owners need the sort of assistance that the Bill will provide to improve the quality of the property. I believe that the Bill will make a real improvement for these small landlords who suffer similar problems to those of

their tenants. For that reason and others I have explained I welcome the Bill.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: I warmly welcome the principle of the Bill. I was particularly glad to hear the Minister, I think for the first time, speak of the need to improve environment. I pointed this out in a debate some time ago. I also agree with the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) that the amount of money allowed under the Bill will not enable this concept to be completely implemented.
It is important that people should live in a pleasant environment, for it can make all the difference in many areas. Too much has been spent on concrete and glass and too little on shrubs, flowers and the other things that make life worth while. I could not comprehend what lay behind the remarks of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Hilton), who seemed to suggest that landlords should not get a penny and that tenants should not have their conditions improved either. I raised the subject of the modernisation of older houses in an Adjournment debate in December, 1965. I am only sorry that it has taken so long to bring in this Bill.
My only other criticism of the Bill is that it appears to be rather long and somewhat complex to bring about a really speedy improvement in the standard of house improvements, but I hope that it will work speedily and do the job the Government have set out for it.
I am sure that the present Minister of Public Building and Works, who replied to my Adjournment debate in 1965, had quite a lot to do with this Bill's inception. He discussed it with me on several occasions and I believe that he, a very practical and humane person, realises that a Measure of this nature will do much to improve the living conditions of many people, and do so at a relatively low cost. But with the Bill being so overdue thousands of homes have been lost because not enough drive has been put into the improvement schemes. Nor have the grants ben attractive enough.
When an improvement in my part of the country cost £750 there was a grant of £400—just over half the cost—and a lot was done, therefore. But in 1965 the


average cost of improvement was about £1,200, while the grant was still only £400. The proposal for a grant of about £1,000 or 50 per cent. of the cost is on the right lines.
The improvement of older, structurally sound houses has many obvious practical advantages. There is economy in land, materials and labour. The money goes much further when three or four houses can be modernised for the cost of one new house. But there are many less obvious reasons. For instance, smaller building firms cannot undertake the building of council houses in blocks of even 20 or so but they can be brought in to do this sort of work. Many jobbing firms of builders can do excellent conversion work and thus we can spread the load on the industry generally.
As the Minister said, there is a social advantage in leaving people in their own homes, where possible, among their own friends and neighbours and close to the shops and pubs they know. Very many people fear being uprooted from among their friends. Many of them dislike the idea of having to go to tower blocks or large council house estates on the outskirts of towns.
I do not believe that the Bill will cure the housing problem—it will not—but it will go some way to keeping going a large number of houses which would otherwise fall into disrepair but which are perfectly capable of being turned into good homes. I hope that the Government do not think that the Bill in any way takes the place of a house building programme, because house building for sale or rent will remain of paramount importance for a long time.
I was shocked last week to hear the Minister for Planning and Land say that our housing problem would be over by 1973. Even in my rural areas, it certainly will not be. Until an engaged couple, who have been engaged perhaps for 12 months, can go to the local council and get a house within another 12 months, I shall not consider the housing problem to be cured. At present in my area, engaged couples are not even allowed on the housing list. This is a very bad state of affairs. I cannot believe that our housing problem will be broken by 1973.
I agree with the main provision of the Bill that the grant should be half of the cost up to a maximum of £1,000. I have some questions, however, about some of the provisions and some omissions. In 1965, all but one of the councils in my constituency had many unmodernisecl council houses. Now most of the councils have completed this work, but in Norwich, the capital of Norfolk, the position is extremely bad. I do not want to introduce party politics, but the Labour Party was in control of Norwich for 40 years until last year. Several thousand houses owned by the council are still unmodernised. In 1965, I was told that there were still about 500,000 unmodernised council houses in the whole country.

Mr. Julius Silverman: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "unmodernised" in this context?

Mr. Hawkins: They are without bathrooms, lavatories or other amenities.
In the debate in which I received that information I urged that an immediate return from all councils should be called for so that the exact figures, council by council, would be known, and so that help could be given to those with the greatest problems. Has this return been demanded and completed and, if so, what has been revealed? With that information we should know what the problems were and where resources could best be used.
The Explanatory Memorandum says:
The improvement contribution is to be a sum payable annually for 20 years equal to three-quarters of the annual loan charges referable to the allowable cost.
I read that as an improvement on the Minister's remarks in 1965 when he said that the improvement worked out at three-eighths of the loan charges for 20 years, but I now understand that this is remaining the amount and that no greater allowance has been given for council-owned properties in this respect. However, I should like to know what that contribution comes to per week. In 1965, at the then interest rates, we were told that it represented about 10s. 9d. a week. What would the allowance mean in terms of rent for improved council houses with current interest rates and the improvement grant at the maximum?
In 1964, the number of grants for privately-owned houses totalled 121,000.


What was last year's figure? In 1964 the Minister said that he was dissatisfied with the rate of progress, that it had gone down a few years previously but was gradually picking up and he hoped that it would pick up substantially. I wonder whether last year's figure is much higher than that for 1964.
In that debate I raised two further queries which do not seem to have been met. One is an important consideration in my district and it may affect others. We have many cottages in pairs, threes and fours which are structually sound, with good roofs, good walls, good foundations, and in pleasant areas, but much too small for each to be improved.
These houses are perhaps only two-up and two-down, and we cannot make a bathroom and lavatory and still house a family. We have always been refused permission to convert two into one, with one grant. This seems stupid. Lots of houses in my areas have been pulled down because no grants can be given to turn a block of four, for example, into two good dwellings, receiving only two grants.
This is a very small amendment which should be made. It was always said that one would lose a unit of accommodation, which is a dreadful word for a home. If the block of four is not occupied it will not provide any units of accommodation. Two units being lived in rather than four pulled down would be better. Will the Minister please look into this?
My next point concerns the fifteen-year period. The hon. Member for South Shields said that this was more flexible. I do not read the Bill in this way. It states quite clearly that
… the dwelling is likely to remain fit for human habitation and in use as a dwelling for at least 15 years.
The surveyors for the councils must read it in that sense. I am sure that local surveyors try to examine each house fairly, but there are sometimes glaring differences between one local authority and another.
In consequence some applicants turned down for this reasons, and backed by architects, feel a sense of grievance. The Minister previously promised to look into the suggestion of an appeal being made from the local surveyor, perhaps to the

regional architect of the Minister, or to some small panel of architects. This would be a good thing, because it would give the applicant the feeling that he was being treated as fairly as someone else in another rural or urban district area. I may be wrong, and there may be some appeal procedure, but I hope that the Minister will investigate this.
There ought to be some appeal, because I have known cases where houses would last for 20 or 25 years. A large number of these improved houses will last a lot longer than some of the newer properties being built now. The hon. Member for South Shields quite rightly referred to the high standards which we must attain. In another context the grant for new houses for agricultural workers was refused, because the owner did his job too well. He built houses which cost something in the region of £5,000 each and was refused the £10 a year grant, because it was said that the average house for agricultural farm workers in that part of the country did not cost much more than £3,500. He wanted to provide a far higher standard, and yet he was refused his grant, which would have been the same if he had spent less money.
If someone wants to house his men to a higher standard he should not be refused a grant because those standards are higher than the average in the district. I hope that we can have an assurance on this point. There is a maximum of 50 per cent. of the cost, which again is qualified by the £1,000. This would seem to be a safeguard against the misuse of public money.
I very much welcome the Bill. It will meet the great need to rebuild houses which would otherwise be lost altogether. It will meet the need to keep many people in areas in which they have been born and brought up and have lived with their relatives and friends. I do not think, as the hon. Member for Bethnal Green seemed to think, that the Bill will allow a lot of substandard housing to remain. We cannot allow a lot of dilapidated, substandard housing to remain which would be improved merely for a few years. But if we can, as I believe, save thousands of houses which will last for 25 or 30 years, or even more, we shall have done a good job.
I hope that the practical points which I have raised will be considered and that


the Bill has a speedy passage so that, from a practical point of view, some of these improvements can start this summer before the building season ends.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. Julius Silverman: I do not propose to take up the interesting and useful points of detail which the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) made. I should have thought that the flexibility of a local authority in making a grant was dealt with in Clause 9.
Broadly, like the hon. Member for Norfolk. South-West, I welcome the provisions and the purpose of the Bill. The renovation of old houses, when they are suitable, makes good housing sense and good economic sense. It keeps communities together and it diversifies the stock of housing, because it is a good thing to have old buildings, some of which have a certain amount of character, intermixed with modern estates.
The Bill deals with the question of environment. I know that £150 per house is not a lot, but it can do a good deal. In my constituency, while a house basically may be sound, I have seen an area deteriorate and go to pot because of the decay of the environment. In some cases, an environment was never created. The Bill can make a great difference in this respect, and I am glad that it deals with this matter.
I am glad also that the Bill provides additional powers, even if they are somewhat limited, to deal with the problem of multi-occupation. In addition, at last, the problem of compensation has been tackled. This has been one of the sorest political problems with many owner-occupiers throughout the country. What the Bill proposes will come as a relief. Perhaps the Minister will consider whether the provisions on compensation can be extended in one or two respects. Hundreds of owner-occupiers in clearance areas have been up in arms at the ridiculous compensation which they have received—originally on the basis of first site value and, more recently, on the basis of gross annual value, which is virtually a nominal payment.
Perhaps the Minister will consider whether 23rd February would be the appropriate date, not for the date of the

council resolution, which means the initiation of the proceedings, but for the date of his confirmation, which will bring in a belt of people who are suffering hardship. This is a definable group. Perhaps what is proposed could be extended. I know of the powerful resentment which is felt by those who, in many cases, have used their life savings and virtually find themselves dispossessed.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I think that my hon. Friend meant 23rd April.

Mr. Silverman: I am sorry, yes; 23rd April of last year. I notice that if a person buys after 23rd April, he does not benefit from these proposals. If an owner buys after 23rd April knowing that the property is likely to be condemned, he has only himself to blame. He buys, he takes a risk and it is his own responsibility.
In some cases, the purchaser or his solicitor makes proper inquires of the local council and the council tells him that it knows of no provision to clear the area or deal with the house. Within three or four years, the owner may be faced with part of a clearance order involving property in which he has invested the whole of his life savings. I think that something more could be done to deal with such cases.
The Law Society has provisions designed to ensure that a solicitor makes inquiries and informs his client. I should have thought that where a solicitor did not so inform his client—there ought to be provision to deal with this—he would be guilty of negligence. Otherwise, in cases where, at the time of purchase, the local council has no idea that the property is likely to be part of a clearance area, the compensation provisions might be extended. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister will consider this.
I am sorry to say that, like other hon. Members, I am totally opposed to Part III, and I shall give my reasons. The private landlord of working-class accommodation has steadily disappeared from the scene. I have no regrets whatever. There are good landlords, there are bad landlords. Private landlordism, however, as an institution dealing with the houses of working-class people has failed steadily over the years. It has declined steadily in the face of owner-occupation, slum


clearance and, occasionally, council purcase. From its former predominant position in the housing market, the private rented sector now represents only about 18 per cent. of houses.
The myth has been accepted over the years—and it has been set out again by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)—that the major reason for the decline of the private rented sector of housing was the control applied by the Rent Acts. That is quite untrue, as the fact which I am about to mention will show. Under the Housing Act, 1954, houses built to rent after 1954 were released from housing control. During the succeeding 12 years, until rent regulation was introduced in the Rent Act, how many houses were built for ordinary people to rent?

Mr. Walter Clegg: Would not the hon. Member agree that during those years there was a constant threat from his own party about what they would do and about bringing these houses under control, and that as long as those threats existed nobody would invest in such projects?

Mr. Silverman: It is completely implausible to suggest that a landlord would have invested in such property but was afraid that a Labour Government would come to power and would apply control. I do not believe that for one moment. There are other reasons why the provision of houses for rent has diminished—entirely different reasons.
Then there is another myth which has been circulated and which is widely believed, and that is that the major factor in the prevention of repairs being done and the decay of houses is rent control. Again, I do not believe that. It may be a factor, but it is not a major factor. These houses were in decay long before rent control was introduced. Before the First World War they were in decay and repairs were not being done. Houses which came out of control before September, 1939, were in decay and repairs were not being done to them.
I know that the 1954 Act, as, indeed, the 1957 Act, proposed that landlords should do the repairs. I shall not go through the details of the 1954 Act, but I remember what was said by Mr. Aneurin Bevan in Committee on the then

Bill. We were together in that Committee on that Bill. He described it as a mouldy turnip of the landlords. That turned out to be correct. He said—and how true it was is indicated today—that either we provided an incentive which would be inadequate to induce the landlord to do repairs, or we should make things intolerable for the tenant. That is the dilemma of the private landlord system, and it is as true today as when Mr. Aneurin Bevan said that in Committee then.
I do not know whether repairs will be done. It may be that they will be done in the first place to get grants, to get increased rents. Maybe. Whether they will continue to be done I do not know. In my view, the provisions in the Rent Act, 1968, to deal with the question of repairs are entirely inadequate, not even as good as those in the 1954 Act.
However, the main complaint of many hon. Members who are faced with the practical problems of the operation of the Rent Act is that the assessment of rents by rent committees fails to fulfil what, in my view, was the purpose of the Act. What in many cases has been decided is a rent very near to the market rent. This is evidenced by the fact that in the areas of greatest shortage, places like London and Birmingham, a rent decided by a rent assessment committee, in many cases overriding its own rent officer, amounts to about two and three-quarters to three times the old controlled rent under the 1957 Act. The 1957 Act was a product of the Government of hon. Members opposite, who were not unsympathetic to landlords, and one must assume that in their view that would be a fair rent.
It might be reasonable to say that today there has been an increase in the cost of repairs and an increase in the standard of living. Suppose that it amounts, as the Minister said, to two-thirds in the cost of repairs. It is one thing to put up the old controlled rent by two-thirds. It is another thing to charge two and three-quarters to three times the controlled rent. That is a very substantial increase indeed which will not be just about the increase in costs but will make intolerable inroads upon the income of people of modest means—not necessarily poor people, but


people of modest means. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Hilton) who said that it is quite intolerable that public funds should be used as the basis for the landlord's charging what I consider to be an extortionate rent in the circumstances. I should have thought that it would have been better for the Minister to reconsider the operation of the Rent Acts and—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Housing Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. McBride.]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Silverman: —put these proceedings right, ensure that rent assessment committees fulfil the formula—what an hon. Member described as "the conundrum"—and put into operation what I believe were the Minister's intentions at that time.
It was said by the Minister this afternoon that a large number of people who own these houses are in a small way of business, owning only one house. I am rather sceptical about his figures. I think that they were based on a sample survey in one or two areas. In Birmingham and London there are a large number of property companies which I would call twilight companies, not the highly respectable companies which do not go in for this sort of property. They buy property for a mere song, a large quantity of these properties, and rely for making a profit on two factors. The first is that the capital price they have invested in the properties is extremely small. The second is that at some stage—most of the tenants being very old, it may be an early stage—the tenancy will come to an end and they will get the property to sell at a very substantial profit, or for what used to be a decontrolled rent and is now a regulated rent.
On the whole these companies have not done badly because of the price they have paid. These people will get a bonanza under this Measure. I do not know whether there is any control over what they will get in terms of dividends

under the prices and incomes policy of the Government. Nor do I know how rapid increases in the rents they get would be consistent with that policy. I ask the Government to look at this again. I hope it is not too late to do so. This part of the Bill has already overshadowed all its beneficient features. It is interesting to observe that in the Press this is the part which has received most publicity.
Clause 17 deals with premiums. I have had the opinion of one or two legal friends that the Clause goes too far and brings into the net abolition of premiums on a wide range of property, perhaps wider than the Government have considered. This is a point which perhaps we could look at in Committee.
For all its defects, I give my blessings to the Bill, and I hope that it will make many thousands of owner-occupiers and tenants happy.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Oscar Murton: I desire, first, to observe the proprieties and declare my interest as a landlord, being a director of property investment companies. I am sure that that will endear me to certain hon. Members opposite.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Hilton) has departed, but the hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) has helped me in some way, because I would commend to those who have argued against any form of freeing of rents, the first example that I can find of a ceiling on rents. It is in chapter 25 of Magna Carta. It says:
All Counties, Hundreds, Wapentakes, and tithings shall remain at the ancient rents, without any increase.
I would commend that to hon. Members should they run out of arguments in the course of the ensuing hours. They can always fall back on that phrase.
I was horrified to hear the hon. Member for Bethnal Green say that, instead of welcoming the Bill and its attempt to improve older housing, he would prefer to rub it out, cut it out, knock it down and start again from scratch. As a result of slum clearance over the past years, we have come to see what can only be described as gaping holes in some of our older cities. These wastelands have not yet been filled with new housing and, where they have been, it has been done


in ways which I am sad to see, and tower blocks now stand up from nowhere altering the skyline and in many cases bringing a good deal of unhappiness to the tenants of them.
I remember seeing a television programme set in Liverpool which showed a devastated area and, standing by itself, was one little public house. The landlord said that his customers travelled between 10 and 25 miles every Friday and Saturday to come back and meet their friends. If such a Measure as this can avoid that sort of thing, it is to be commended.
By the very fact that the Industrial Revolution began in this country, our housing stock must be among the oldest in the world. It was said at one time that the boast went out from Britain that we had the finest artisans' dwellings in Europe. Many of those houses have gone. Possibly there are a million houses among the 80 million existing which are still substandard or slums. Certainly there are 3½ million which need repairs costing something in the region of £125 or more.
On the other hand, we can defend our housing in many ways. If cleanliness is next to Godliness, we are the most Godly race in the world. Even now we have more piped water and fixed baths than any other nation in Europe. Then again, privacy is vital, and, carrying the statistics further, in terms of persons per room there is only one country in Europe whose people have more room space than those who live in the United Kingdom. The figure in Bedgium is 0·62 whereas in the United Kingdom it is 0·68. In that great paragon of a Socialist State, Sweden, the figure is 0·83. Then one comes down to what I call below the line. In the U.S.S.R. and Poland, the figures are 1·5 and 1·66 respectively, although, surprisingly, one could defend those countries whose way of political thought is alien to ours by saying that they have very modern stocks of housing but that their concept is different in that they pay more attention to modernity and central heating while paying little or no attention to individual privacy. As a result, one finds many families grouped, almost crushed, into units of accommodation.
If I were to criticise anything in the Bill as regards the important seven standards

of amenities there set out, it would be to say that there should also be an eighth standard. That eighth should be the provision of a damp-proof course, because from what I know of housing—and I come originally from an area where slum conditions were at their very worst and I have seen those substandard houses—the lack of a damp-proof course can cause more misery almost then a leaking roof. I hope that if it can be done within the money that is available, the Government will reconsider whether it will be possible to make a contribution to damp-proof coursing.
What worries me about the Bill is the effect of the Government's proposals on the house building programme generally. The Minister, according to the Financial Times of 31st January this year, said that the new Measure would involve the Government in spending on renovation some £40 million a year by 1972–73, but that this would be contained within a total public investment in housing kept at its current level. I should like to ask the Minister who is to reply how he thinks this will work out vis-à-vis what I can only call normal municipal housing; in other words, the provision of new council houses. I have a feeling that it will be a very tough business deciding how this money is to be spent.
I am also worried about the impact of the cuts in local authority mortgage lending. This has already been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker). There is to be only £30 million available in 1969–70. That will be the fourth successive cut which has been made. I think that local authority mortgages are of vital importance, because they are normally the first step in a newly married couple's move towards home ownership. If local authority mortgage lending is to be cut, it will be a very serious matter because it militates against the effects of the Bill.
I am also worried about the impact of the provisions concerning local authorities. If there is to be a cut-back in the annual rate of growth of the rate support grant for the next two financial years, as we know there is to be, part of the financial burden, although the Government admittedly provide the greater part of the contribution in what


is envisaged, will nevertheless have a very large effect upon the finances of local authorities, particularly the large city authorities where these general improvement areas are concentrated. I believe that the Association of Municipal Corporations has already voiced its concern about this point.
One of the most excellent things about the Bill is the suggestion of environmental improvement in Clause 40, but I wonder whether £100 per dwelling of approved expenditure is sufficient for good environmental improvement. I know that it will possibly be thrown at my head that the Deeplish study at Rochdale proves that it can be done; but, after all, this is the only exercise so far which has been carried out, and the adequacy of the grant will obviously depend on the extent of the acquisition involved in any one scheme. I know that that is a truism, but I hope that it might be possible for the Government to think very seriously about this matter.
We have seen an excellent exhibition in the Ministry's own building of what can be done about environmental improvement. It will be a great tragedy, if money is to be made available, that it should be restricted to the sum of £100 per dwelling. I think that another £25 or possibly another £50 would be better. The hon. Member for Aston mentioned £150. I do not know whether he meant that, but perhaps he will agree that £150 would be better in the circumstances.
At long last something is being done about the problem of slum clearance compensation. The Bill gives full market value to the owner-occupier, but it is unfair to the owner of tenanted property. The danger of having this differential is that we may well run into what can only be described as a black market in unfit houses, by devising means for sale to tenants by landlords. I think that this needs to be looked into again. What would be the cost to the Exchequer of treating both categories alike?
The hon. Member for Aston has already touched on the point which I wish to raise, namely, what should be done about the timing of this compensation. The A.M.C. is exercised about this matter, and I believe that it has recently decided to press the view, which

I believe the Birmingham City Council has put forward, that the principle of site value should not apply under any circumstances, and that the full market value ought to be paid in respect of tenanted properties as well as those which are owner-occupied.
The question of the qualifying event is an important one for the operation of the new compensation provisions. The suggestion is that this should be the date of the confirmation of an Order, rather than the date of the commencement of relative proceedings. I believe that the G.L.C. has raised a similar point. The G.L.C. would tackle it in a different way. I should prefer to leave this to a London Member to discuss, but there is in both the A.M.C. and the G.L.C. some anxiety about this, and I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will deal with this, or, alternatively, that he will accept an Amendment in Committee to make this more equitable, otherwise hardships are likely to arise, and, secondly, a racket might develop.
What is the advantage of using local authority valuers in this general question of compensation? I am not suggesting that a local authority valuer would be better than any other valuer, or indeed any worse, but there will always be in the minds of those who are involved a suspicion that when a local authority acquires a property compulsorily it is acquiring it for its own use, and I commend what was said on a previous occasion by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), that the valuation courts would be a much better vehicle for dealing with this problem.
I come now to the great problem of the transfer to the fair rent system. I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite hold sincere views about this. I hold equally sincere views. It has been said that the landlord should consider himself lucky if he can receive a grant sufficient to improve his property. Under the present Government, he will be extremely lucky to get that, but I suggest that landlords fall into two categories. I am speaking about reputable landlords, not those involved in acquiring rundown accommodation, because here I agree with the hon. Member for Aston. This is not something which I should ever countenance


As I said, there are two kinds of landlord. There is the landlord by inheritance who would willingly deprive herself of himself of the ownership of a property if he, or she, were able to obtain vacant possession so that it could be sold. This is a very important point, because many people who have inherited property find that it is a liability.
Others who have inherited property do not want to part with it, but find that compensation merely for repairs is not enough. Surely a landlord ought to receive some return on his investment whether he has bought it or inherited it. It is easy to become sentimental over these questions, but I am sure that hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House have had many pathetic letters, often from widows whose late husbands, cautiously and after working hard all their lives, have put money into bricks and mortar in the belief that this was a safe and secure investment, only to leave these little ladies landed with one or possibly two houses for which they receive a ridiculous rent which does not cover their outgoings.
The Bill will do something to help these people, but they need more help, because most of them are not wealthy by any standards. Surely it is wrong that they will receive compensation only for repairs, in respect of which they will have to put their hands into their purses again although they have had no return from their properties for many years—certainly not since their husbands died.
Over the last three years the Minister and his predecessor have had the statutory power to bring into regulation certain controlled tenancies. I appreciate that such a move possibly could not have been made in respect of the great cities but it could easily have been carried out, had the Minister and the Government been so minded, in such areas as market towns and smaller towns with up to 100,000 inhabitants, where the same crying pressure for housing does not exist. It is surely wrong that that was not done. There is an old proverb which says that
'"Hope deferred maketh the heart sick.
People have written to all of us and asked, "When will this happen?". Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House have said to them, "The Government

will not do it". What hon. Members opposite have said to them I do not know, because I have not seen their replies. But even now, when we are moving towards a fair rents system, the question of deferment still arises. I appreciate the problem of houses with lower rateable values, because the people concerned would be hit by an increase in their rent, but it does not make sense in respect of rateable values of £60 in the provinces. I see no reason why the people concerned there should have to wait two years for this to be done.

Mr. Lubbock: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the Minister is creating a new problem in that if he made such an order he would remove the incentive given to landlords under the Bill to improve their properties? They could get fair rents without doing so.

Mr. Murton: The hon. Member may have a chance, eventually, to give the House his views on the matter. What worries me is that there is not much incentive by a landlord to put any more capital into a house in order to have it moved towards rent regulation. It may be argued that he is merely moving money from one investment into another and he is losing the interest on the money that he brings in. This is a problem which must be sorted out.
Then we come to the question of the poorest tenants. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, Southwest (Mr. Powell) mentioned this vital point. These poor tenants cannot afford any more rent and they will appeal to the county court to prevent their houses being improved. They would rather live in misery than pay the extra rent, and I can understand that problem. How much better is the Conservative plan of subsidising tenants as individuals rather than the housing stock, so that they can pay for the improved accommodation. That would make them happy, the houses would be better and the Government would help those who cannot help themselves.
Clause 73 will give local authorities new powers to secure repairs with regard to "age, character and locality", This could be of great value in assisting the improvement of an area of special architectural significance, but there is a warning here. The Clause gives considerable


powers to local authorities, and one hopes that they will be used exceptionally. The power of a local authority to carry out improvements by agreement and at the expense of the owner in Clause 75 also needs a word of caution from a Conservative Member of Parliament. I would say simply, no direct labour please. I hope that small independent builders will be used for this type of work.
I am equally worried about the payment of the improvement grant and wonder whether it would not be a good idea to follow the system adopted under the War Damage Regulations, whereby the improvement grant was paid in the first place to the local authority which was responsible for paying the builder for the work done. This would have two beneficial effects in the present case. It would control the work done and see that it is done properly and well and would also prevent the grantee spending the money on something other than the work for which the builder was employed, and the builder not being paid—which is not unusual.
With regard to leasehold premiums in Clause 78, the Minister has been shamefully slow in putting this matter right and more delay is obviously inevitable. I am worried by the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that anyone can now go ahead with a sale on the basis that we are going to legislate. Strange things happen to prevent legislation and I would much rather commend to the House the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), the Rent Act 1968 (Amendment) Bill, which is

already off the printing press and which could go through unopposed. My hon. Friend has drafted it well; it would be quick legislation and would avoid the need to spend the summer months on this Bill.
I make one final plea—that we should not forget that there is a housing shortage. I do not believe the story that we will have a sufficiency of houses at the right price in six years or ten years. There will always be a shortage of houses. The population is growing and houses are falling into disrepair. Even those which will be improved will have a life of perhaps only 15 years. We should not become a nation of council house tenants. If it is not possible for all people to buy their own houses when they want them and if, because of taxation, they must wait until they can save up to buy them, let us encourage private building for rent. Private builders at present will not build for rent, because they claim that the political situation is such that they will not risk their capital and that of their shareholders. Some hon. Members opposite have already reinforced the doubt in their minds. This is not the Conservative Party's attitude. We would give depreciation allowances to help the builders to build to rent. This is what used to happen. If there were sufficient rented houses, the market for rented houses would be wide enough for the rents to be reasonable so that everyone could afford them according to the standard of house they wished to rent. This is what we have got to go back to. It is vital. Until we do that, we shall never solve this problem.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I deeply regret to have to say that this Bill, which aims to accelerate the improvement of old houses, unless amended, will have the reverse effect. It will bring the whole process to a halt. Its good features—and there are many—will be vitiated by that provision which will take 400,000 houses out of their present rent control. This will mean an increase in rent of up to 300 per cent. or 400 per cent., as I shall show.
For 13 years some Labour Members—Mrs. Harriet Slater, the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, who is now retired, was a pioneer in this field—pressed for this particular kind of help for old houses. It pains a number of my hon. Friends that this great opportunity is being lost. The hearts of the Cabinet Ministers and Conservative leaders are bleeding for the poor old landlords. Should they not be bleeding for the poor old tenants? For every poor old landlord there are a dozen poor old tenants. There are breadwinners taking home to their families £14 a week after stoppages, who will have their rents trebled and quadrupled.
There is an unholy alliance here tonight between the two Front Benches. They say in remarkable chorus, "Rents must go up." Naturally the landlords and the property owners support them. There are too many alleged housing experts whose solution to the housing problem can be summed up in two words—"higher rents". [An HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] The big property firms which are hiding behind the skirts of the small landlords are jubilant. Somebody said "Rubbish". May I refer to the Financial Times for the day after the White Paper was announced? It was exultant and announced that one company alone, London and Westcliffe Properties, estimated it would enjoy a £100,000 increase in the value of its properties if the White Paper were put into legislation.
There is one basic point which must be met. Whilst the improvement of old houses is vital, it must be in addition to new building and not in substitution for it. The installation of bathrooms, lavatories and hot water systems is very close to my heart, but it must not be made an excuse for slowing down the new

house building programme. The housing need is so great that we must have both—new building and improvement. I beg of the Secretary of State for Wales, who I believe is to wind up the debate, to make it clear that there will be no lowering of our building targets because of this Bill.
Generous grants for property owners already exist for the improvement of property. They receive half the cost of installing new bathrooms, hot water and inside lavatories. These additions must mean a considerable rise in the value of their houses, and they can raise their rents by 12½ per cent. of their half of the cost of these improvements. Under the new proposals landlords will be entitled to receive up to £1,250 per dwelling—a vast hand-out from public funds—and also take their rents out of the present control system and through the "fair rent" machinery.
According to the Ministry—I am quoting Departmental figures—this will mean an average increase in rents throughout the country of 2·6 times; in other words, an increase of 260 per cent. In London, Birmingham, Southampton and similar areas, however, I estimate the increase will be more than 300 per cent.
That is not all. As these houses will be greatly improved by the addition of bathrooms and so on, the rent increases will be above these percentages, since the increased value of the houses will be taken into account when the new rents are assessed. That is why the rent increases will in many cases be over 400 per cent.
My experience is that tenants are happy to take advantage of the existing system. They do not mind paying 7s. or 8s. a week extra for a bathroom, or perhaps 15s. more for an extension built at the back of the property. If, however, they are told that their rents will be raised by 300 per cent. or even 400 per cent. they will refuse to pay. The resistance will be so great that I doubt whether an attempt will be made by local authorities to enforce such increases through the county court.
I recently visited a row of houses in my constituency where the landlord has, under the present procedure, put in bathroom conversions. The tenants are paying an extra 7s. a week rent, and they


are delighted to do so. Am I now to tell them, "Sorry, folk, but because you now have bathrooms, your rents are to be trebled"? The Tories might be prepared to say that. It should not be the responsibility of Labour hon. Members to say it.
In this case the landlord used the existing procedure and obtained the current grant. I am not suggesting that he made a fortune out of the exercise. On the other hand, he certainly did not make a loss. He would not have gone in for it if he would have lost money on the deal. His tenants are now paying an additional 7s. a week. Under the Bill they can be asked to pay an enormous increase.
Increases in rent are rent increases, even if they are phased. Many of these phased annual increases will be more than the 7s. 6d. per year allowed yearly for council rents under the procedure being followed by the Minister. I give no secret away when I say that, with few exceptions, my hon. Friends who are present tonight and who are particularly expert in housing problems share my criticisms of the Bill. I wish that while being prepared to listen to us at length, the Minister would sometimes act on our advice.
I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) for drawing an important fact to my attention. There are 141,000 National Coal Board houses, vast numbers of which—whole villages and townships—will be taken out of their present rent control as a result of the Bill, including those in areas where pits have been closed. It is obvious that my right hon. Friend has not fully considered all the repercussions of the Bill.
My right hon. Friend will no doubt want to know my alternative proposals. There are several. In the City of Leeds, using existing powers, the local authority has gone ahead with area improvement schemes. Whole parts of the city have been improved, not only by the addition of bathrooms but in other ways as well. Twelve thousand houses have been transformed. The local authority used existing powers and grants. If Leeds could do this, why could not other authorities do it without the new liabilities?
Secondly, there are many valuable suggestions in other parts of the Bill which will be most helpful. Thirdly, a number of my hon. Friends, right, left and centre, have put forward an alternative—and when the proposal is supported by Labour Members of such varying political views as my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), and my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), or my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and myself, I would say that it is almost a unique occasion. It must be a remarkably good idea.
The alternative we suggest is that, instead of taking rents out of control, tenants should be given an opportunity of becoming owner-occupiers. The landlord would have to offer the house for sale to the sitting tenant. He would have to do this before taking the rent out of control, whether a bathroom already existed or whether he intended to install one. There are five great advantages to this proposal.
First, it would ensure that the houses were improved in huge numbers. Note how, last year—and these are the Minister's own figures—five owner-occupiers improved their homes with standard grants for every two private landlords. Owner-occupiers have sensibly taken advantage of the grants, whereas the landlords, with some honourable exceptions, have not. If one goes down any street in a working-class area, one finds that most of the houses which have had bathrooms put in or have been well maintained are owner-occupied. If my right hon. Friend really wants to improve the stock of houses, this is the way to do it.
Secondly, this proposal would meet the argument which we have heard constantly, that the small landlords cannot afford to repair and improve. If they cannot afford to do so let them sell their houses. These houses—some of them 100 years old—have been paid for over and over again in rent, and I do not see why the public should rush to their assistance any more than it rushed to the assistance of cotton shareholders who were on a bad investment. These landlords, unlike other capitalists, do not put aside for depreciation as they should.
Thirdly, this proposal would take away the false Conservative charge that Labour is not interested in helping owner-occupiers. Fourth, it would be immensely popular. Fifth, it would be a real alternative to raising rents as is proposed in the Bill. Far better for the Government to provide funds to owner-occupiers to improve their houses rather than allow a trebling of rents, often with no improvements at all. Clearly, the houses would have to be sold at their present value, which means at rent control values and not trebled values, which we would get if rents were similarly trebled.

Mr. Peter Walker: The Minister explained that 60 per cent. of these houses were owned by landlords and that 40 per cent. of the landlords were pensioners. Why does the hon. Gentleman believe that a pensioner with only a single house should sell that house for £1,500 at a controlled rent, whereas the tenant in the following week should be able to sell it for £3,000? Why should that pensioner not obtain the benefit while the tenant should?

Mr. Allaun: There is no reason why control should not be placed on the new owner-occupier selling the house again within a short time. This is a perfectly reasonable alternative.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Do not councils, even Tory councils, impose similar conditions when they sell houses?

Mr. Allaun: Certainly. In Birmingham and elsewhere a five-year limit within which the new owner is not allowed to sell has been imposed.

Mr. Peter Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman now explain why, even after five years, £1,500 should go to the tenant and not the pensioner?

Mr. Allaun: Five years is a long time under any system. My hon. Friend said that he doubted whether as many as 61 per cent. of landlords were the owners of only one house. It may be true of Lancaster, where an inquiry was conducted, but it certainly does not apply everywhere. It would be intolerable if the selling price of such a house were to be trebled, and that is certainly what would happen if we proceeded with the idea which is so popular with the hon. Member for Worcester.
While I support the aim, I condemn this part of the plan and I appeal to my right hon. Friends to be big enough to have second thoughts in Committee.

10.47. p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I am entirely in sympathy in principle with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) that these tenants should be permitted to buy their own houses, but the problem bristles with the most formidable difficulties some of which were outlined by the Minister when he posed a number of questions to the hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved), questions which I have not yet heard answered by those hon. Members who have supported this proposal.
This afternoon I had a "green card" sent into me by a constituent of mine who owns property in London. He lets it to an old lady and her daughter at a gross rent of £1 13s. 3d. out of which he has to pay more than £1 a week in rates and water rates, leaving less than 13s. 3d. a week out of which to pay management charges and repairs and the rest of the outgoings. Unfortunately, the water main burst recently, doing about £300 worth of damage which the tenant is now asking him to put right. How can he do so with an income of 13s. 3d. a week?
What price is it suggested this old lady and her daughter should pay if they have the right to enfranchisement, as is proposed? If they pay the amount which an investor would pay for an income of 13s. 3d. a week, my constituent will not do very well out of the deal. However, as the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) has pointed out, the old lady, or, more likely, her daughter, would have an absolute bonanza in a few years' time when the house was sold, no doubt with vacant possession, when it would be worth £3,000 or £4,000. The hon. Member and his friends would do well to think a great deal about the mechanism of their scheme before we reach Committee. I shall certainly not turn it down out of hand, but, like the leasehold enfranchisement scheme, it requires careful thought for a number of years—and we have made mistakes with the leasehold scheme, as the Minister has recognised by Clause 78 of the Bill.

Mr. John Page: I have done some mental arithmetic and I make that a gross rateable value of £18. There cannot be many houses in the London area with a gross rateable value of £18.

Mr. Lubbock: The property is not in my constituency. The landlord lives in my constituency, but I am not sure where this property is. It is somewhere else in Greater London. I did not make a note of the address. The hon. Gentleman must be wrong, because the rates and water rates of the property were just over £1 a week, making £52 a year. These are the figures given to me.
The second theme of the speech of the hon. Member for Salford, East and other hon. Members opposite, was that it boiled down to our giving vast hand-outs to landlords from public funds in making these grants available under the Bill. My point of view is quite simple, not in the pejorative sense, but simply in that the Minister's figures showing how many of these properties in the controlled sector are unfit for human occupation tell their own story. Over a period of years, by keeping the rent of these properties down to an artificially low level, we have ensured that they were allowed to become slums or unfit for human habitation.
The hon. Member must fact this problem squarely. Does he want the remaining one-third of those properties which can still be salvaged, to be restored to a fit condition for human occupation, or should we continue with the present system and allow them to degenerate to such an extent that 400,000 properties still salvageable, according to the Minister, have to be replaced by new local authority building? If that is the hon. Member's choice it will be a lot more expensive than the £40 million a year which is ultimately to be spent under the Bill. It means that those houses will have to be demolished, for the new skyscrapers talked about by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Murton). Not only will money have to be spent, but the social upheaval resulting from the dispersal of families from an old and well-loved area of a city will lead to more human misery than is caused even by the poorer housing conditions which these people have to endure.
Although landlords will receive a certain amount of money under the Bill I

look at this pragmatically, if that is an adjective which one can still use in this House, and I say "Good luck to them"—let them have the money if it means salvaging a few houses which would otherwise need to be demolished by the local authorities to make way for some new glass and concrete skyscraper, which would probably be condemned as unfit in a few years' time. Will the landlord really make as much money out of the scheme as the hon. Gentleman seems to think? I rather doubt it. If one looks at the most recent thorough survey of the matter, the Milner Holland Report, we see that on page 39 it says:
… when the long-term cost of finance is 6½ per cent."—
a very modest amount by today's standards, but I suppose that that was the going rate in 1965—
the net income to the landlord after annual outgoings on repairs etc. (but before tax) ought to provide a minimum rent of 9 per cent.
We are talking of interest rates, long-term finance, if it can be got of 8½ per cent. to 9 per cent. The hon. Member for Salford, East can see that 12½ per cent., which has been provided hitherto for landlords to make improvements to their properties, will not even allow them to break even, let alone make a profit.
The arithmetic done earlier by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Hilton) must be mistaken. I did not take his figures down but if he looks at page 38 of the Report he will see clearly how to calculate the amount of return necessary for a landlord to break even, given a certain rate of interest on the money that he has to borrow. These figures in the Report give a very different picture from that painted by the hon. Gentleman.
The other interesting thing to which I want to refer from the Milner Holland Report is the table on page 42, which compares the rents which have to be charged by a local authority, a housing association and a private landlord to recoup their expenditure for two different types of property. One is a house costing £5,500, including land, and the other is a house costing £3,750. I shall give only the first example to illustrate the point. The local authority charges


£3 3s. 8d., the housing association would have to charge £7 14s. 1d. for the same accommodation and the private landlord would have to charge £10 1s. 8d.
The reason for these enormous differences is fairly clearly understood. The private landlord cannot borrow over as long a term as the local authority, for which the period is 60 years. It may be only 10 or 15 years for the private landlord. He has to pay much higher interest because he is not such a secure borrower as the local authority, and, of course, he has to make a profit. We can argue what the exact rate of that profit should be, but the private landlord is in a different position from a local authority, which has only to recover its total expenditure over a period of 60 years.
Therefore, if the private landlord is to make any contribution to meeting the need for rented accommodation, he must charge something like three times the local authority rent. We are not suggesting that under the Bill, by the transfer of properties from old control into regulation, we will allow the landlord to go that far. It is true that there are to be increases over a period of years, but not to the level of three times the amount which a local authority would charge for similar accommodation.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: In assessing the cost, do those figures take into account the fact that the private landlord may gain tax relief on the money he borrows, whereas a local authority does not?

Mr. Lubbock: The figures in the Milner Holland Report take into account the tax position of the landlord.
The point is made that because certain items of expenditure are not allowable for tax purposes, the landlord must charge a higher rent than he would otherwise need to charge. This is a point which we should have looked at some time ago. Like certain hon. Members opposite, however, I am not at all optimistic about the contribution that the private landlord can make in the long term to the supply of private rented accommodation in total.
How one should judge the Bill is to see whether it will diminish the rate at

which properties disappear from the rented sector and into owner-occupation. To the extent that we can arrest this decline, we will relieve the burden on the local authorities for the building of new properties. I hope that hon. Members opposite agree that this is a matter of some importance.
I am not all that sceptical about the Minister's claim of an accrued surplus of houses, as he put it, in the early 1970s, although I do not think that it will necessarily be as large as the figure given by the Minister for Planning and Land the other day. This depends upon not having too rapidly declining a private sector, which would throw an additional burden of new building on local authorities.
I have been following the figures over a period of years with interest, because they are crucial to any study of our housing problem. It is interesting to see that between August, 1957, and April, 1959, the rate of decline in controlled properties after the Rent Act, 1957, was at about the same rate of 10 per cent. as, the Minister says, applies today. We have come down to figures, which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave me in an Answer at the end of last week, of 350,000 controlled properties in London and 1,550,000 in total in England and Wales. If one wants to know what it will be at any time in future, the Minister said, one can apply this 10 per cent. rate of reduction.
One of the interesting things is that, as a result of the survey which was conducted in 1967, the figures have had to be revised slightly upwards. The Ministry of Housing ought to make sure that we have continuous knowledge of the state of housing, and not merely undertake these surveys at intervals of a few years, when they may show that assumptions on which we had been working for some time were mistaken. The Minister himself, in his speech today, said that the 1967 survey demonstrated that the state of housing was much worse than the local authorities had led us to believe.
In the first speech I made in this House on housing—I do not very often quote myself—I said:
Top priority should be given to a definitive survey of the long-term housing needs of the nation.


The then Minister, now Lord Hill, in reply, said he did not think that was a particularly good idea. He said that
it is not my idea of a top priority that it should be given to statistics and definitive surveys. Rather should the top priority be the immediate problem of housing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1962; Vol. 658, c. 1078, 1141.]
Of course, one would agree with him, if that had been done by the Conservative Government.
However, the point I am making to the Secretary of State for Wales is that unless we have knowledge of what the housing situation actually is we are not able to make the type of plans necessary to meet the circumstances of the next few years. So I would urge that the survey undertaken in 1967 is not used as a guide to what is going to happen for the next five or JO years, but that a continuing survey is done, either by the Ministry of Housing itself or, if the right hon. Gentleman likes, by the Ministry of Employment and Productivity, which did this one. There should be continuing survey work throughout the country on a sample basis so that we know what the condition of housing is. Then we can see in which direction we are going.
One or two words about the rest of the provisions of the Bill. I have dealt with the controversial aspects. I should like to join in the general welcome which has been given by all hon. Members, I think, to the other provisions.
The idea of general improvement is an extremely good one. There is just one question I should like to ask about that. I see at the beginning of this Part, Part II, that any person who appears to be suitably qualified may submit a recommendation that a particular area should be designated a general improvement area. I ask this question of the Secretary of State for Wales, and I hope he will deal with it when he replies to the debate. Suppose a very suitably qualified body makes a recommendation that an area be designated a general improvement area and that the local authority declines for no particularly good reason. I endorse and approve what the Minister said about the minimum of interference being exercised by him with this function of local authorities, but I am just wondering whether there should not be a right of appeal against a local

authority in a case where a perfectly good recommendation is turned down.
Part IV, about houses in multiple occupation, I think is a good little provision, although the Minister said it would probably not be particularly extensively used. The Part on slum clearance is welcome and I join in the approbation of that Part.
The Minister has satisfied a lot of people by including in Part VI this amendment of the provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act. I hope that it is true that it will be borne in mind that solicitors who are in great difficulty can carry on as though this Clause had already become law. I think it was the hon. Member for Poole who said he was not sure whether solicitors behaved in this way, but I can assure him that this is a matter which has caused very considerable difficulty. I am not just depending on what the Law Society has said. I have had in my constituency three or four cases of people who have entered into negotiations to sell property, and who have found, partly because of the negligence of their solicitors, that, having proceeded so far, they then have had to come to a stop. It amazes me. I hope that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) who, I understand, is a solicitor, will not mind my saying that many in his profession do not bother to read not only Acts of Parliament but even newspapers in which the matter has been extensively discussed. They proceed so far on the road to negotiations that their clients have incurred substantial expense before they discover snags such as these which will be rectified by Clause 28.
I declare an interest as a director of a small building company. We have had some difficulty in the last few years in getting the finance needed in my business, and I believe in the building trade generally, to carry out our operations. The Government say that builders will join this scheme to make improvements in properties whether they are owned by local authorities, private landlords, or owner-occupiers. Of course the building industry would be delighted to assist in carrying out this operation, but builders will need some working capital if they are to add this to the tasks they undertake. I agree with some hon. Members who have said that it would be a mistake


to put this £40 million of new work on to the industry. If we continue in the credit squeeze which we are suffering and the banks are debarred from lending additional money to companies willing to undertake this work, it will not be carried out at all.
I hope that the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Wales will represent strongly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there should be some relaxation in policy concerning central construction. If the finance is not made available the Bill will not be implemented simply because builders will not be able to undertake the work.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. E. Rowlands: I should like to follow the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) in some of the things he said, but I find myself somewhat restricted by reason of the fact that I am serving on a Parliamentary sub-committee which is investigating the housing services. I therefore feel unable to comment on some of the general points made by the hon. Member because I believe it is protocol not to make statements about such matters during an inquiry on which one is engaged.
As the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Wales have emphasised over and over again, this is essentially an improvements Bill as well as an important Measure giving new compensation for people with properties affected by slum clearance. We have been waiting for decent compensation to be offered to people with unfit houses. The inequities of the 1957 Act are well known. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales knows of cases in his constituency, as there are in mine, poignant cases of people being paid a mere pittance for improvements. Thousands will owe the Minister a debt of gratitude for this formula. I fear, however, that hundreds will feel cheated because they will be excluded from the new compensation provisions of the Bill.
As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, the new compensation terms apply only to households affected by clearance orders which have begun after 23rd April, 1968. They will

leave out thousands at present affected by orders started before that date. They will still be living in those houses and not be paid a penny in compensation under the Bill. They will get only the old compensation terms, which we recognise as unjust.
This will be the position in Cardiff. In a section of my own constituency, we have a large clearance order affecting no fewer than 228 houses in Plasnewydd. Of those, 159 have been declared unfit, and 43 of them belong to owner-occupiers. A lengthy public inquiry has resulted in many objections to the clearance order, generally on grounds of compensation. These people, who have not been paid a penny and are still living in their homes, will not enjoy the advantages of the new compensation terms in the Bill. The same will apply to all cases where clearance orders are not yet confirmed, unless the Bill is amended.
People will have an additional sense of grievance in cases where the old system of compensation is found to run alongside the new one. Under clearance orders dated after 23rd April, proper compensation will be paid to people affected by them. At the same time, the old site value compensation will be paid to people affected by earlier orders who have not yet moved out of their premises.
I cannot see the difficulty of amending the Bill in this respect. It cannot be difficult to identify the people who could be given a fair deal under the provisions of the Bill. I can see the misfortune of those who have been compensated under orders which have been confirmed and completed, but that is no argument for saying that people who have not yet been paid should not get the new terms of compensation. In the Bill, we recognise that the old terms are unjust, yet we continue to apply them to thousands of people.
The general aim of and spirit behind the Bill is to deal with the improvement of old houses and the regeneration or rejuvenation of our older communities. I think that most hon. Members will support it. However, if it is to achieve its purpose, it must be carried through with care, imagination and humanity by the authorities in charge of implementing


the policy. Its success will depend enormously on the way in which Clauses 34, 35 and 75 work.
Clause 75 establishes the right of local authorities to act as agents on behalf of owner-occupiers—individuals or groups of people. This is a valuable additional responsibility. Clauses 34 and 35, which potentially are by far the most important, lay the duty upon local authorities to make known their proposals for general improvement areas. That is most important, but it does not go far enough. Clause 35 says that the proposals of a local authority ought to be made known to the community. Surely it should be more. If the purpose of the Bill is to be achieved, surely we have to involve the whole community in the process. The local authority must find what its people want. Sometimes the response will be semi-coherent, but people should be able to make known their ideas about how to improve their community.
In this respect, I cannot do better than quote what I consider to be the treatise on the regeneration or rejuvenation of old communities. It is a study conducted by an American, Miss Jane Jacobs, entitled "The Death and Life of Great American Cities". She says at one stage:
Conventional planning approaches to slums and slum dwellers are thoroughly paternalistic. The trouble with paternalists is that they want to make impossibly profound changes, and they choose impossibly superficial means for doing so. To overcome slums, we must regard slum dwellers as people capable of understanding and acting upon their own self-interests, which they certainly are. We need to discern, respect, and build upon the forces for regeneration that exist in slums themselves, and that demonstrably work in real cities. This is far from trying to patronise people into a better life, and it is far from what is done today.
This should be the spirit with which local authorities dealing with the powers in the Bill should handle the regeneration of our twilight areas. The success of the Bill will depend on the imagination and humanity of the authorities. It will not be sufficient for local authorities to put out the odd pamphlet or notice on a desk at city hall or produce forms which are incomprehensible to the majority of those whom they are trying to help.
I should like to see more provisions included. I suggest that the Bill should

include a provision to establish a new type of officer called an area improvement officer whose specific job would be to explain to people, to act as a go-between the communities and city hall. He would probably become known as Jones the Improvements in South Wales. But he could live in the area and have an office locally. He could help in a more successful way to sell these provisions by example. There is no better way than selling by example. One or two local authorities have bought the odd house here and there in different areas and have done them up to show what can be done with the grants. These are not in museums, but in the areas concerned. In one case 25,000 people went to see one house. It was not Longleat or Blenheim, but 25,000 people went to see it. This is one simple method which should be included in the provisions of the Bill to sell the idea and explain to the community what can be done so that they might be encouraged to carry out improvements.
I should also like to see stronger provisions for compelling local authorities to take action. Clause 71 is the only one which obliges local authorities to take action. I should like to see a provision that local authorities, within a specified period, should submit area improvement schemes or, if not, explain why they have not got areas to improve. It is necessary, in my opinion, to impress upon local authorities that they should act under these provisions.
The Bill is a major instrument in housing policy and town planning, rather like our town planning legislation, because in many cases we have had enlightened legislation, but it will not achieve its purpose or be effective unless it accepts the reality of the situation in many towns and cities.
The aim of the Bill is to restore, regenerate and rescue certain areas of twilight housing. However, it could be frustrated and contradicted by policies pulling in opposite directions—by decisions taken by local authorities, sometimes approved by the Ministry, aimed to destroy and break up these communities.
Here, on the one hand, we have a Bill going through the House to deal with a rescue operation—the regeneration of twilight areas. On the other hand, we


have a number of major local authorities planning massive urban motorway schemes through the areas we are trying to recover and rescue.
It is not only in Cardiff that we are faced with the London type of motorway box. The same sort of thing is to be found in Salford, and in almost every large city. Major highway schemes are being proposed to go through the very twilight areas which we are attempting to rescue. What are we to do about this? Does the Minister intend to tell local authorities that he wants them to reconsider any proposed schemes of that kind? Will he tell them to take into account the new factors introduced by the Bill?
Every hon. Member who considers the Bill has in his mind's eye the areas that he knows very well, perhaps parts of his constituency. There are two wards in my constituency which I think should automatically be designated as areas for improvement—Cathays and Plasnewydd. They are two very large wards, which stand to lose 1,600 to 2,000 houses because of the highway authority's proposals. These houses will be lost, as will others close to the motorway routes. Where is the incentive and encouragement to carry out improvements to a house if it is next to an urban motorway which acts as a Chinese wall and carves its way through the very communities that we are trying to improve?
I do not want to elaborate on this, but it is important that we should recognise the state of affairs in so many of the areas about which we are thinking. My plea is that the Bill should be seen not merely as part of the housing programme, but as part of the whole process of town planning, a process which we began with the new ideas in the Town and Country Planning Act, and which is now to be continued by means of the tools and instruments provided by the Bill for the regeneration of our old communities.
There must be a combination between the housing and planning authorities in any programme of restoration, and, what is more important, in any programme of rebuilding. I should like these authorities to combine area improvement scheme with schemes for the building of

new houses in the twilight areas. If I am right, Clause 33 is contrary to the aims I have in mind.
That Clause says that no land included in a clearance area can be included in a general improvement area. The houses in clearance areas are to be removed under clearance orders. But often these areas are both clearance areas and improvement areas, and ought to be looked at as one, and not as separate entities.
Under this Clause residential property will be cleared away, and in its place there will be non-residential development which will impinge on the areas which we are trying to improve and preserve. As proof of that, perhaps I might refer to what is happening in my constituency. Under the terms of a clearance order, 228 houses are to be knocked down. Under the new proposals, which are intrinsically a part of a potential improvement area, not one new house is to be built. Instead, there are to be warehouses, motorcar showrooms, and the like.
The reason for that—and this is a situation in which local authorities and planners often find themselves—is that when a twilight area is cleared the land becomes extremely valuable, and the last thing that many authorities think of doing is building houses there. I suggest that Clause 33 should be amended, and that clearance areas and improvement areas should be considered as a whole.
What greater faith could we show in the twilight areas than to get local authorities to build new houses while at the same time improving the existing houses in those areas? For this reason I should like us to consider what the Bill can do in the wider concept of town planning and the regeneration, renovation and rebuilding of our twilight areas.
The Bill could be one of the most important features in the regeneration of Welsh valley towns and communities. In Wales a recent survey showed that whereas we thought that we had about 40,000 houses which were in need of immediate financial assistance the number was no less than 92,000. The Bill could help the valley towns and city neighbourhoods in Cardiff to bloom again. It could bring greater comfort to many people who already share the


joy and happiness that goes with a good neighbourhood, and the feeling of kinship which they and their ancestors have experienced for countless years.
All that we can do is to add these extra comforts to an environment which is already happy. In this respect the Bill could make a wonderful improvement in the planning and redevelopment processes of our town.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. Walter Clegg: First, I apologise for not being so assiduous in my attendance in this debate as I normally am in respect of debates in which I wish to take part. My arrangements were upset by the three-hour pantomime which preceded this debate. It was a strange commentary on our procedures that for that debate we had a full House and Press Gallery whereas for this one we have only a tithe of the attendance.
This has been a fascinating debate. To me it has also been a tragic one, because on both sides of the House are men of good will, all wanting to solve our housing problems. I do not think that any of my hon. Friends has suggested anything other than that this is what all hon. Members want to do. The tragedy is that so different are our ideas for solving the problems that we make them worse instead of better. I was fascinated by the arguments put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). He argued very forcibly for a free market, and his arguments were compelling to any Conservative. I could not go all the way with him in his suggestion for a return to conditions which formerly operated, because I do not think that we can have a free market so long as there is a division between the parties—so long as there is a threat that a future Socialist Government will upset any free market that a Conservative Government might set up. Therefore, in reality we cannot have a free market, because the market is distorted by that future threat.
In an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) I said that the threat that has come from hon. Members opposite has affected our housing position and has prevented private capital from coming forward to help solve our difficult problems. I look upon this as

a tragedy, because in many other Western countries, including Socialist countries, private capital has not been denied the chance to help solve housing problems. In many such countries private capital has been helped by the Government to achieve a solution of the housing problem in the great cities, but here that has not been the case.

Mr. John Fraser: Where? What happens, surely, in Scandinavia is that private capital is not used to make profits on housing but is pumped into housing associations at a reasonable rate of interest: they then control it themselves without making large profits. That is the difference, surely.

Mr. Clegg: I disagree with the hon. Member. In certain Socialist countries—Norway is possibly an example; certainly in Scandinavia—private capital is used. It has been used with tremendous effect in West Germany and the United States. I agree that these last two are capitalist countries but tremendous strides have been made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) talked about attracting the great funds of the insurance companies and pension funds for investment. This above all is when we need them. Possibly for the first time, hon. Gentlemen opposite are realising that the public purse has a bottom and that taxation will not allow this Government to solve the housing problem by Government money. So it would be ideal to get this private money into the housing field.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester implied that, on this Measure, a bridge could be built between the parties to allow this money to be used. Regretfully, I do not believe that this will happen, because the interests which will read the Report of this debate and see the enmity of hon. Gentlemen opposite for the private landlords will say that the bridge has not yet been built. This is a great tragedy. If we could agree on some method of attracting capital and giving a good return, we should get a good flow of money and a new direction for housing.
The present stock of rented housing is decreasing and many reasons have been given for that this evening. Another is that it is clear from the statistics that the


least mobile section of our community—we need a mobile community because mobility in itself creates extra room—are the council tenants. This is not their fault: it is the system. It is very difficult for a council tenant to transfer from house to house, even more difficult to transfer from estate to estate and almost impossible to transfer from town to town. The most mobile section are the tenants of private landlords.
But hon. Gentlemen opposite want to create two types—council tenants and owner-occupiers. They want to be rid of the intervening privately rented sector. This does not apply to all of them, but it was said by the hon. Member for Sal-ford, East (Mr. Allaun)—and the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) is all for getting tenants to buy their landlords out. So this seems to be part of the pattern of the thinking of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
If that is done, the council tenant section of the community will be a "frozen society", immobile. This is one of the heavy prices they are paying for subsidy.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with great interest, because I agree that private landlords who are investing money in houses should get a fair return. Has he considered the fact that, since 1965, there has been a fair rent system, and that, on new property built for renting, the landlord and the investor could get a fair return through the rent officer's assessment? Yet we have seen no dramatic increase in private rented property. The hon. Member's friends do not seem to want to invest their money.

Mr. Clegg: I think I can answer the hon. Gentleman. First, the fair rent system has worked far better than I ever thought it would. I was not in the House at that time, but if the hon. Gentleman had been here earlier he would have seen how inimical that system was to some of his hon. Friends. But he has taken only part of the argument. If we could agree between the parties some system based on fair rentals, we should have gone a long way towards solving the problem. But for the small investors, the 60 per cent. who own one house, we have also the problem of protected

tenancies, the inability to give a tenant notice to quit.
I will explain to the hon. Gentleman the sort of practical difficulties that this causes. I am a solicitor. Very often when a tenanted house becomes vacant the landlord comes to me and says "What shall I do with it? Shall I put it back on the market and sell it with vacant possession, or shall I let it?" I say "If you let it you can now get a fair rent assessed and may get a reasonable return. Immediately you let it you will lose the vacant possession value, which will be many hundreds of pounds, and you may not get possession of the property for another 20 or 30 years. Then, if you need liquid capital in five or six years' time, you will not be able to get it." What nearly always happens is that the person sells the house, and it means one fewer rented house. In the creeping decontrol time under the old Act I had many clients who were prepared to give a five or six years' lease at a rent agreed with the tenant and not sell with vacant possession because they knew that at the end if circumstances changed they could do something about realising their property.
I turn to the question of compensation. I usually try to knock hell out of the Minister on every possible occasion, but he has done a good job in the compensation provisions. However, like Oliver Twist and like his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands), I should like to ask for more. Coming from the north of England, the Minister knows as well as anybody in the House the bitterness which the present compensation arrangements have caused. There was a programme on Granada recently called "On Site" devoted to compensation cases, and all the cases showed the bitterness of the people. There was a tremendous post afterwards.
I ask the Minister to reconsider the retrospective provisions. I know his difficulties; they are real. But, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, North said, there will be people whose claims are not settled still living in houses which will receive the old compensation when houses in another part of the town receive the new compensation, and this will cause even more bitterness.
I draw attention to a problem which is not dealt with in the Bill but perhaps


it will be if the Minister will make it possible in Committee. I refer to the plight of small businessmen faced with the problem of good will and the difficulty with district valuers on this point.
I again say that I think that this has been one of the best debates on housing that I have ever listened to in the House, and it has been a privilege to take part in it.

11.39 p.m.

Mr. John Forrester: As the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) said, there is a division of opinion between the two sides of the House about the type of rented property that we think there should be in this country. I do not propose to get into an argument with him now, but I think that we should agree strongly that we both desire a great extension of owner-occupation.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman very much about the immobility of council house tenants. I think he has a very fair point there. I am sure that many council housing managers look upon transfers as an intrusion which they ought not to have to bear. Anything that the Minister can do to get more mobility of council house tenants in an area or between areas would be welcomed by council house tenants.
Most of the points have been dealt with adequately in the debate and, therefore, I shall content myself with a few brief remarks on some of the contents of the Bill. Like so many other hon. Members, I give a general welcome to the Bill because I believe that it can produce a great improvement for controlled tenants. In many of our industrial cities they have been the Cinderellas of housing for far too long. Many of these houses have been occupied by their present tenants for more than 30 years and, as the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) said earlier, so many of these houses are now occupied by pensioners and others who have no earning capacity.
In addition, as one might expect, the people who occupy these houses usually have incomes which are lower than those of people in other types of accommodation. Therefore, because of their earning capacity, they have throughout their lives been denied the opportunity of

enjoying the modern amenities which other members of the community have had. Because they are householders, they have in most cases been denied the opportunity of council accommodation. In Stoke-on-Trent we have at the moment 2,865 applicants on the council housing list, of whom 1,291 are householders. The number of householders who are seeking better accommodation is an indication of their great desire to have modern amenities and environments, and also indicates a willingness on their part, as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said, to pay more for the better type of conditions.
By improving the grants which local authorities may pay and also by allowing landlords to claim for repairs and replacements, this Bill will bring hope to many people who had probably despaired of ever getting modern amenities. The greater powers which the Bill provides for general improvement areas are to be welcomed, and the local authorities should be encouraged to proceed with all reasonable speed to put these powers into force.
It has often been said that many people do not wish to leave the area in which they now live. This is true. Some people never settle on new housing estates. They wish to return to their former houses. But it is also true that many of the people who vowed and declared that they would leave and go to new housing estates only when the bulldozers and the bailiffs came, would not return to those old areas if one paid them to do so. However, this is not really an argument against the Bill, and this provision is very important indeed.
We hear a lot about participation in the affairs of government. Both central and local government have been particularly lax in this respect and have caused themselves many unnecessary headaches as a consequence. It has been my experience that people are vitally interested in affairs which affect them directly, although one could hope that sometimes they would be equally vitally interested in affairs which affect them but which appear perhaps a little more remote.
The provisions involving householders and landlords in prior consultations about improvement areas are some of the most


important in the Bill. There is nothing more maddening than to receive an official pronouncement, then to hear nothing else, then to have one's house inspected, followed by silence, interrupted perhaps only by rumours which circulate for months. Such procedures were never defensible and in today's world they are totally unacceptable. Community cooperation should not be just a slogan but something put into operation wherever possible in all spheres of life.
The additional powers for dealing with multiple occupation are also to be welcomed. Many houses in multiple occupation are proper in every respect, but in many cities some large, old houses have been taken over by landlords, white as well as coloured, with the sole aim of making a large profit in the shortest possible time. By trading on the misery of those who are having difficulty in finding accommodation, they charge exorbitant rents, and when the rent officer is called in the tenants quickly receive notices to quit. This type of multiple accommodation is distressing to both the tenants and the neighbourhoods in which this type of property is situated. I would like to see local authorities using the extra powers they have quickly, making sure that this sort of accommodation is brought up to standard and seeing that the number of occupants in these houses is restricted in accordance with the new provisions.
Like many hon. Members, I have for some time been disturbed by the confusion surrounding slum clearance compensation and by the anomolies and injustices in the old arrangements. I welcome the increased payments for well maintained houses and for owner-occupiers. I echo the sentiments expressed by hon. Members on this subject and urge my right hon. Friend to look again at the question of retrospective compensation for those who have not yet been moved from their houses, some of whose houses have been declared unfit or will be so declared in the coming two years. They will feel very sore indeed if those whose houses are now declared unfit are removed before them and if their compensation is not as high.
Now that such inroads have been made into slum clearance, at any rate in some areas, it might be possible for local health

authorities to give more accurate assessments of the likely length of life of houses. If property prices are to rise as a result of the Bill, which seems likely, the effect of the Measure—I refer to both its good and bad provisions—should not result in people having to pay exorbitant prices for short-life property. More accurate information should be available for prospective buyers, and perhaps some sort of warning issued to them.
Those who are least able to assess the situation are those who are the least able to suffer financial loss. However, these are the very people who always seem to cop out. Society should do all it can to protect these people from unnecessary heartbreak.
Delay is often experienced in slum clearance compensation payments. Those who are waiting for compensation often have no other savings, particularly the old. I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that there is no delay on the part of his Department in granting loan sanction so that these people, often old-age pensioners, do not have to wait for perhaps two or three years to be paid out.
In Stoke, we have had 6,979 applications for improvement grants and we feel that this is quite a good achievement. But, if we omit the Housing Trust and some public bodies, only 440 of the applicants have been owners other than owner-occupiers. We are approving now about 600 grants a year. At this rate, it would take more than 25 years in order to modernise the 15,000 houses we have which have a life of more than 15 years but have not modern amenities.
The failure of the old Act lay in the fact that landlords were not permitted to get a return which was agreeable to them on their capital. Whilst interest rates remain high, and a person can perhaps double his capital on the Stock Exchange in four or five years, it is unlikely that landlords will do improvements for 12½ per cent. on their share of the cost. It is true that some owners can get more in interest rates if they sell their houses than they do in rent.
I have some sympathy with those who are left bad property and cannot dispose of it. I am almost tempted to join the consortium of some of my hon. Friends in the view "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em". But, as usual, there is another


side to the story that we must take into account. Many of these old houses have been paid for eight or nine or more times over. Indeed, some of the long-term tenants—occupying for 30 years perhaps—have themselves paid in rent five or six times the purchase price paid by the owner.
Knowing this, there is often a psychological barrier to co-operation between landlord and tenant. Despite restrictions placed on tenants through shortage of money and through decay and design of the houses, many have transformed their homes and have enhanced the value of the property. If the landlord comes along and seeks a regulated tenancy, he should not have the benefit from the industry or home pride of the tenant. If such a regulated tenancy is going to reflect the Government's contribution through what, in effect, is a subsidy for improvement and for past neglect of repairs and replacements, it will work out into a weekly subscription from the tenant until the property is finally closed down.
In my city rateable values are low and rents comparatively low—much lower than in many other large towns. This is a reflection of our low-wage structure, and I know that many of my hon. Friends feel more concerned about this than I do because they can quote rents which would make my constituents turn white at the thought of paying them. Most people are prepared to pay for modern amenities and I believe that they should be prepared to do so. But they must also feel that their repayments are just. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider again this question of whether the controlled tenancy should become an open-ended regulated tenancy or whether it would not be more just to allow a percentage increase, perhaps 20 per cent. instead of 12½ per cent., of the landlords share of the improvement costs.
The last Act failed because it was unattractive to landlords. We do not want this Bill to fail because tenants feel that the increased rents would be unbearable. We should not be using a compulsion against tenants that we were not prepared to use against landlords.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Arnold Shaw: I have sat through the whole debate which I have found fascinating. It gives me

tremendous pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Forrester) who expressed the whole situation in such human terms. This is a human problem and I shall approach it in that way.
Like so many hon. Members, I welcome this as an imaginative Bill. It is designed to increase the stock of good houses and to provide for the general improvement of areas of old houses. We have always looked forward to this. I also welcome those provisions which give justice to owner-occupiers who in the past have been so abysmally treated in slum clearance schemes.
However, I was saddened to hear my right hon. Friend make a speech which could have been made by a right hon. Gentleman opposite. I find it completely impossible to support as it stands that part of the Bill which has caused so much controversy, which deals with the large-scale decontrol of existing tenancies which are to be turned into regulated tenancies. It is said that this is not a Rent Bill, but it will be difficult to persuade tenants in controlled tenancies who will be drastically affected that it is not a Rent Bill. Compared with this effect, the Bill's benefits will fade into oblivion.
The Minister hopes by huge public investment in rented properties and the bait of greatly increased rents, to persuade landlords to improve their houses. He may well succeed. However, I remind him of the words of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) on the Second Reading of the notorious Rent Act, 1957, when he said of that Measure:
… it will arrest the deterioration of millions of houses for lack of maintenance … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1956; Vol. 560, c. 1775.]
If it had done so, the Bill would not be necessary today.
On that occasion, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) warned that most landlords would simply sell their properties, and that is what happened. In my constituency, mysteriously and almost for the first time for years, houses were given a lick of paint and sold at figures passing the wildest dreams of their owners. But still the percentage of rented properties declined. It is paradoxical that, whereas the execrated Tory Act, the 1957 Rent


Act, helped to reduce the number of landlords, an enlightened Labour Measure will give a shot in the arm to private landlordism. As a Socialist, I cannot accept this.
I repeat the warning which was given to my right hon. Friend by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Hilton)—when the Minister was outlining these provisions, hon. Members opposite were smiling broadly.
In another place it was said that for the first time we have had landlords smiling broadly, and when that happens, when members of the Opposition smile broadly too, there is a catch in it somewhere. I sincerely hope that the Minister will take cognizance of this. Stress has been laid on the hardship and injustice suffered by owners of one or two properties. There is a certain amount of substance in this, but it is not impossible to devise some scheme whereby such houses could be acquired either by the municipality, or through the tenants being able to buy them.
Another complaint is that rent control leads to under-occupation. This may be so, but it is also a hazard in many other sectors of housing. I would commend to my right hon. Friend a scheme that we have in the Borough of Red-bridge, whereby we acquire properties belonging to elderly people who find them too much to manage. The council provides accommodation for the owners, and the property is then put to more economic use.
Having discussed the difficulties of the landlord, what about the tenant? What can one say to the tenant who, by a change from control to regulation, finds himself paying anything from two to four times a week more? There is some sort of palliative in the Bill, through the phasing of increases. It might not be so bad for the tenant who finds that extensive and expensive alterations and repairs have been made. He can understand the reason for the increase. What about the tenant whose property is already in a state which requires nothing more to be done to it?
Now the landlord has the right to apply for qualification for rent regulation. We have had widows flung at us from all angles today. I know a widow, who

after the recent, tragic death of her husband, came to me and asked how she stood in the matter of her tenancy. I was able to reassure her, since she was a controlled tenant. What am I to say to her now? Am I to tell her that, through the kind agency of a Labour Government, she will have her rent increased by three or four times? In page 7, paragraph 31, the White Paper says:
The Government have in the past been unwilling to pass controlled property into rent regulation under the Rent Act, 1965, until more experience has been gained of rent regulation. They are still unwilling to allow this to happen except where some countervailing advantage could be secured for the tenant.
What countervailing advantage will this lady have? At the moment her property requires nothing to be done to it, yet she will have to pay three or four times more rent.
I must welcome, too, as many other hon. Members have done, the fact that Clause 78 remedies a deficiency in the Leasehold Reform Act. I wonder, however, whether a new Clause might be introduced in Committee to remedy a far greater defect in the Leasehold Reform Act which has been highlighted by the recent case before the Lands Tribunal. Already this is causing great disappointment. It came as a shock to many leaseholders who hoped to gain by enfranchisement. It is a matter which is becoming urgent and I hope that my right hon. Friend will take this opportunity to remedy the situation.
Like many other right hon. and hon. Members, I give qualified support to the Bill.

12.6 a.m.

Mr. John Fraser: One of the themes running through the debate has been the problem of whether to charge market value, cost or subsidised value for accommodation. I listened with fascination to the speech of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I always enjoy his speeches. I used to listen to him on the Third Programme before I was elected.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Good heavens.

Mr. Fraser: May I say to my hon. Friend that I also listen to Ken Dodd, because of the quality of his language and not the difference which it makes to the organisation of human society.
In this glimpse of the ninteenth century, one can adopt the words of a nineteenth century playwright. I believe that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is like Oscar Wilde's cynic: he knows the market value of everything, but the human values of nothing.
The right hon. Member spoke, for instance, of a refrigerated society. What he seems to forget is that people do not rent refrigerators. There is an adequate provision for people to buy them.

Mr. Powell: Why?

Mr. Fraser: Because the capital is made available for them to purchase them. Secondly, there is an adequate supply of refrigerators. One can go to capitalist New York, or to other capitalist countries in Europe, and still see the fact of rent control and see that people and Governments, even capitalist Governments, have recognised that in the conurbations there will always be a shortage of rented accommodation and that humanity and control need to step in, because we are not fatalists controlled by market forces: we are Socialists who believe that we can control them for ourselves. That is the answer.

Mr. Powell: In New York, one can see the squalid consequences of rent control.

Mr. Fraser: All I can say is that the right hon. Gentleman has not even friends in New York.
It is not necessary to go to New York. One can go to my constituency and see the effects of market forces operating. One has had plenty of experience of seeing market forces operating since 1957. Of course they operated. People used this situation, as people will in a capitalist society, to make as much money as they could. This was no incentive to improve premises. In overcrowded areas where premises could have been improved and let, sometimes a house which could have been let as one unit was let as four or five units.
Then, along comes the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. He looks at the market situation which was created by the 1957 Act and he uses it as material for his speech to the Eastbourne Rotary Club. The curious contradiction

is that the right hon. Gentleman, with his belief in market forces, does not believe in the market forces of labour employment. When they operate, that is a quite different matter. When world market forces operate to bring people from underdeveloped to developed countries to work, then, because of the colour of their skin, market forces are out. Market forces are used by the right hon. Gentleman only when it happens to suit him.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), though not in such strident terms, also referred to the problems of the market, saying that the big investment companies were not willing to put their money into housing accommodation because there was not enough return for it. This was also the argument, I think, of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg). The difference between the capitalist and Socialist approach is that Socialists recognise that one must look at the cost of a product, and not at the market value of the product, and there is a difference between the two.
Where I take issue with the hon. Member for North Fylde is this, that it is possible, and it is done in the Scandinavian countries, to provide housing accommodation at cost through co-ownership and housing associations, with money taken from the private market at a reasonable rate of interest. It does not have to be done in such a way that there are very large undulations in market forces, especially in conurbations, meaning a much higher return for the investor than is reasonable and what he would get for putting his money into a building society or into, say, a unit trust. This is the difference between us. I agree that a fair return on capital is needed to bring money into the housing market but one does not have to go the other extreme of the right hon. Gentleman and remove all control so that people have to pay extortionate sums for money they have to borrow. It is the cost which counts.
I would take issue with some of my hon. Friends who are concerned because some tenants will have their rents raised from what is below cost to something above cost because their controlled rent in many cases is below the cost of accommodation, and their regulated rents


are something above the cost of accommodation. I include in cost reasonable return on capital. This is one of the difficulties and why people resist the Bill. From the practical point of view there is no great difficulty, and it will be five years before this happens, and if one were not to have some change in the rent structure on the terms of this Bill one would have to have some other change to take account of the increased cost of repairs.
I turn to the terms of the Bill which I approve and welcome. I welcome it because inside the crowded conurbations—and I represent part of one—some increase in housing standards can be brought about by increasing building by councils, though council house building in the conurbations is very much a matter of renewal and very little now a matter of new building. I give a great welcome to what the Government have done in speeding up council housing. Some help has been given to the conurbations through what goes on outside them—new towns, expanded towns, redistribution of employment, and the general increase in the amount of building which goes on. But statistics are never a cure of the housing problems. The only real cure for the housing problem is local action.
That is why I welcome this Bill so much, because inside the conurbations and the crowded areas it tackles a problem which so far has not really been tackled properly by any Government. I welcome particularly those provisions which deal with multiple occupation, which is almost entirely concentrated in Manchester, Birmingham and London. I think about 80 per cent. of it is London and Birmingham. I have listed in Motions in the House some of the things which cause great human misery.
This problem of multiple occupation is not known in every town, but in my area it brings about poor facilities such as lack of w.c.s and bathrooms. In my constituency it has caused tragic fires in which people have died—in multiple occupation houses. Noise is caused because in multiple occupation houses there is no sound proofing; there are common stairs; the radio from the floor below is heard on the floor above; the baby screaming is heard on the floor

below by a person trying to listen to the television. There are no play facilities for the children, there is inadequate provision of dustbins, there are not places for hanging out washing. Cooking smells go from floor to floor. There is inadequate provision of light, gas and water services. There are the human conflicts which come about because people are inadequately housed in one dwelling. Outside the houses there is lack of parking facilities. It is a tribute to the adaptability and tolerance of our people that they have managed to bear this situation so well. This is why they will welcome so much the action which the Government are providing. I welcome the action promised by the Bill in relation to multiple occupation. Multiple occupation is like a disease cell which divides. One family is moved out and rehoused, but two families move in. By solving one housing problem, two fresh problems can be created.
I wish to say some words of constructive criticism about powers. They should apply to a house where more than one family is living because these problems of conflict and inadequate facilities can be as great when there are two families as when there are three or four. Prevention is better than cure but past legislation has dealt with symptoms and has not been preventive medicine. The provisions should be mandatory on local authorities in the big conurbations. Otherwise a problem is shifted from one area to another. They should also apply to houses occupied by more than one family.
The part of the Bill dealing with improvements will be much welcomed in conurbations where people are suffering from neglect and decay in housing and where they have a fixation about getting a council house because they believe that nothing can be done in the place in which they live. Some people come to advice bureaux resenting essential repairs being done to eliminate damp or to improve a roof because they believe that those repairs might diminish their chances of getting council accommodation. They want a wholesale improvement of their environment so that they can live in dignity and comfort and not have a fixation about getting a house from the local authority. This cannot be done under the 12½ per cent. provisions. If one


works out the cost of amortisation and the cost of borrowing, as has been done by Mr. Needleman in "Economics of Housing", one finds that the net return is about 3 per cent. or 4 per cent.
Figures have been quoted of 61 per cent. to 78 per cent. of landlords being managers of single houses. These people have not the business acumen to manage a house or to understand legislation. I am worried about their ability to understand this legislation and to get the capital needed. They will have to be encouraged. Good public relations would help a little, but some of these people are not capable of appreciating the business opportunities available to them. Landlords with business acumen do not own this kind of house. They go for the furnished house and the large return available to them. The Minister should publicise much more the provisions of Section 19 of the 1964 Act which enable a tenant to require a landlord to carry out necessary improvements. I believe this is practically unknown to tenants who require improvements.
The real incentive to improvement comes from people who own their houses. This is why I am so attracted by the idea of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) that there should be a pre-emptive right among tenants to be able to buy their houses and carry out their own improvements. They are prepared to invest more in their houses than are private tenants or, for that matter, private landlords. The Survey of Family Expenditure shows that the house buyer's housing expenditure is about twice as much as that of the private tenant. It has been shown statistically that the private tenant and council tenant spend more on such items as beer and cigarettes than on rent.
The real incentive lies in the fact that, if one owns one's house, the conflict between landlord and tenant is removed, and people are prepared to spend more on and devote more attention to their houses. It is good economic sense, too, in that the person who doubles his housing expenditure buys fewer consumer goods. Thus, it makes good economic sense to encourage people to buy their houses, and I regret very much the Minister's decision to cut down on council house lending.
May I suggest a solution? It does not cost anything to buy a house, because, although a house purchaser pays 7 per cent. interest, he gets a 7 per cent. rise in value every year. It does not cost anything at the end of the day, because capital appreciation pays the interest. On the other hand, the investor in unit trusts gets a return of between 2 and 3 per cent., but his annual capital appreciation is much greater. Last year, for example, it was 40 per cent. If it were possible to pay people who save in building societies or put money into Government stock for housing purposes a capital appreciation after, say, seven years and thus encourage them to save, one could increase the capital premium at the end of the seven-year period and reduce the rate of interest, so making it more attractive to the investor and less expensive to the person wishing to buy a house.

Mr. Peter Walker: This is a very interesting idea. However, the Minister's projection is that, by 1973, there will be no shortage of housing. If that is correct, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that there may be a fall in the value of houses, and not an appreciation?

Mr. Fraser: I am being baited on that. Frankly, I do not agree with the idea that there will be a surplus of housing. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State referred to "a crude shortage" of housing. He meant by that that there would be an overall surplus of houses over the overall demand.
However, I do not think that statistics cure housing shortages. I believe that the more housing there is, the greater the demand for it. Certainly that is the experience of Sweden, where it even leads to more divorces. If a man knows that he can get another house, he tends to leave his wife.
For too long, we have suffered from contradictions in housing. With the 1965 Act and the Housing Subsidies Act, the Bill begins to remove the contradictions and makes for a better housing future. As an hon. Member representing an urban constituency, I welcome it, because it makes a great potential contribution to the improvement of houses in the big conurbations, where new houses cannot be built but where old houses can be made into new homes.

12.29 a.m.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: I am sure that the House will be relieved to hear that my contribution will be fairly brief. My hon. Friends have informed me that I have been referred to a number of times in my unavoidable absence, and, in view of that, I thought it right to intervene, however briefly.
I agree wholeheartedly with the welcome to the provisions of the Bill dealing with multiple occupation. That which gives me the greatest pleasure is the part which brings in the need to provide against fire risk. I have been appalled, in many of the properties that I have been called to look at by anxious tenants, by the terrible fire risk which has existed. I hope that this section will go a long way to dealing with that aspect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Arnold Shaw) touched on the provisions for slum clearance compensation. I welcome this as one more part of the piecemeal way in which the Government are dealing with the system of compensation. But I ought to warn my right hon. Friend that many Members on both sides will not be satisfied until he has dealt with the whole ambit of compulsory purchase compensation, including injurious affection. I am sure that I would be ruled out of order if I tried to develop that argument further.
The hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg), as I understood him, was trying to indicate that if we could free rented property from the restrictions of rent control there would be an influx of private capital which would solve the problem of the lack of privately rented property. I think that I understood the hon. Gentleman fairly accurately. I would only add what I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) has said. Under the 1954 Act decontrolled houses have been available. New houses have been built since 1964 at decontrolled rents. Under the 1965 Act a landlord can go to the rent officer and get a fair rent determination on new property, if he so wishes, which will give a proper return on investment in housing of that nature. But there has been no great influx of private capital into the rented property sector. Perhaps the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page),

who is to wind up for the Opposition, might like to comment and say a few words of encouragement to his friends outside on the need to invest in the provision of new property for rent where a fair return can be obtained.
With the exception of Part III, the Bill is a first-class measure which I warmly welcome and support. But in Part III there is the difficulty that landlords will be in a position, if the Bill goes through unamended, to obtain a substantial increase in their income which is quite unjustified in a great number of cases.
To split the section up into its two parts and deal, first, with those houses which already have the standard amenities and will, over a phased period, be able to enter into the fair rent machinery, I can see no justification whatsoever for this. If a house, when first built, had the standard amenities the landlord has received a fair rent based on the value of that house at the time that it was built. If, in recent years, the facilities have been put in, the landlord has been able to obtain his 12½ per cent. increase. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), that the 12½ per cent. probably is not a worth-while return. I would not argue about that. It may need to be a slightly higher value where the landlord is providing, or has provided, these amenities. But there is no justification, in my mind, for those houses which already have standard amenities coming into the Rent Act provisions of regulated rents. I feel that in those cases, if the landlord applies for a qualification certificate under Part III there ought to be a new Clause inserted giving the tenant the right to opt to purchase that property. This would remove entirely the hostility that exists on these benches and will exist outside when the provisions of Part III become known, because it would say to the tenant of a house where the standard amenities already exist, "You have this opportunity. You can either purchase the house and all the expense involved in maintaining it hereafter, or you can pay a rent under the Rent Act system."

Mr. Murton: Does the hon. Gentleman think that any tenant will accept the option to purchase, bearing in mind how few of them accepted the option under the Leasehold Reform Act?

Mr. Wellbeloved: If I understand the position correctly, hon. Gentlemen opposite say that thousands of council house tenants are straining at the leash to buy their houses. From my experience in my constituency I know that a considerable number of private tenants would like the opportunity of acquiring the property in which they live. They do not wish to leave the houses in which they have lived all their lives. They do not wish to leave the area, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands) in his moving speech. They want to remain where they are, and they are prepared to purchase the houses in which they live. The answer to hon. Gentlemen is to put the necessary provision into the Bill and see what the result is. There will be no injustice in doing that. It will give private tenants the option to purchase, as opposed to entering into fair rent schemes.
I propose to deal, now, with those houses in which the standard amenities do not exist. There is no justification for subsidising the private landlord for doing what he should have done in any case as a good landlord, and then forcing the tenant to pay an inflated rent. Again I feel that on the application for a qualification certificate a tenant should have the right to exercise an option to purchase.
I understand that a number of questions have been asked about this suggestion of the right to exercise an option to purchase. It was asked what guarantee there could be that a tenant who exercised his option would carry out the necessary repairs. Doing this could be made a condition of his exercising the option.

Mr. Frank Allaun: It would be in his own interests to do it.

Mr. Wellbeloved: That is true. If someone exercised his right to the option, he would do so because he wanted to improve the property, and he felt that it will be worth while his doing so. We could lay it down in the Bill that a tenant who exercised this option would be under a legal liability to carry out repairs, with the help of the grant which will be available

Mr. Clegg: Who would make the tenant do the repairs—the person who

sold the house, the local authority, or who?

Mr. Wellbeloved: A statutory responsibility could be laid on the local authority to see that the conditions of the Act were carried out. Alternatively, it could be made a condition of his mortgage. It would defeat the object of this Measure if people in houses without the standard amenities did not carry out the necessary improvements. There must be written into the Bill a clear requirement that the person concerned shall, within a stipulated period, say 12 months—carry out improvements and install the standard amenities.
I have also been asked what would happen about people who bought a house, put in standard amenities, and then quickly sold it and thus made a capital gain. I think that it will be necessary to write into the Bill a limiting period of time within which that cannot be done. We cannot say that such a person will never be allowed to sell the house, but I think that after a full investigation in Committee we can agree on what would be a reasonable time within which the house could not be sold.
I shall not develop all the arguments which I should like to put forward in support of the principle of private tenants exercising an option to purchase. I think that within the title of the Bill it will be possible for me to move suitable Amendments if I am fortunate enough to be a member of the Standing Committee which considers the Bill. If I am not, I am sure that some of my hon. Friends who are luckier than I will be happy to do so, to enable the idea to be aired and discussed.
This is a first-class Bill. It is a Bill which could make my right hon. Friend's name go down in the history of housing legislation, but this Measure will be marred by Part III, and I urge my right hon. Friend to think again about giving the private tenant the option to purchase. Let us set the private tenant free. Let him join the great area of owner-occupiers. One of my hon. Friends said that it is the owner-occupier's house which looks spick and span in any road, not because he is a better type of person than the private tenant, but because he owns the property and has an incentive to keep it that way. It is his house. As


with many other speeches that I have heard from hon. Members opposite, I was appalled by their not jumping to their feet and acclaiming this idea as a great breakthrough in the move towards the property-owning democracy about which we used to hear so much not so long ago. My right hon. Friend must think about this point again. His name may go down in history as that of a great housing Minister, but it will do so only if he alters Part III and takes action along the lines that we are suggesting.

12.35 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: The Minister told the House that he had discarded the alternative put forward by the hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) although he was quite prepared to consider it further. The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford will forgive me If I say that I intend to wait until I see his Amendment on the Order Paper in Committee—when we shall be able to debate the matter fully—before making up my mind about it. As put forward at the moment I cannot promise him support from this side.
The Bill could have been a good one. It sets out to encourage improvements and repairs to dwellings by increasing the limit of grants. We warmly support that. It gives birth to a system of general improvement areas in which local authorities will be able to improve the environment. We shall help to bring this child to maturity. The Bill provides for compensation for the house as well as the plot in the event of the acquisition of property in clearance areas. My hon. Friends and I have pleaded for that for a considerable time. The Bill tries to cure the long leasehold flats market from the paralysis put upon it by the error of the Government in earlier legislation. For the last few months we have also demanded, with some vehemence, that that be done.
But these good intentions have been almost nullified by the Minister's action—despite his brave words in presenting the Bill—in looking over his shoulder—his right shoulder in this House but his left shoulder politically—to try to pacify those of his hon. Friends who still have a very deep-rooted prejudice gainst any private landlord who provides a dwelling to let.
So, while trying to encourage investment in improvements and repairs to dwellings the Bill forbids a fair return to those who put their money into those improvements—forbids a fair return for a period which may run for as long as eight years before the full rent is payable. While reforming the law about improvement areas, the Bill fails to tackle what the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands) expressed as a matter which needed care and humanity. Care and humanity is, indeed, needed when a local authority descends on an area rather like a storm of locusts, and clears it. It needs to be dealt with with more humanity than is expressed in the Bill.
While admitting that controlled rents should be fair, the Bill delays their implementation for so long that when they do come they will be less than fair. Again, while admitting that the owner of property which, for the good of the community, is taken by compulsory acquisition or the threat of compulsory acquisition, should be entitled to the market value in full, the Bill denies him that if he has been such a public-spirited criminal as to let the property.
While recognising that buyers and sellers of long leases are not really criminals if, in addition to their rent, they pay something towards services provided by the landlord, and in those circumstances they can buy and sell their leasehold property, the Bill insists that they are criminals if they do so and only the ground rent exceeds two-thirds of the rateable value.
The Bill's basic purpose is to save the existing stock of old houses rather than to bulldoze them down in clearance areas or leave them to fall down as a result of controlled rents. The Bill has been in the Ministry's pigeonhole for some time and its introduction now fits in rather neatly with the excuse put forward, in our debate on Thursday, by the Minister for Planning and Land for the abandonment of the pledge to build half a million houses a year by 1970.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South-West (Mr. Powell) referred to the Minister's forecast that the end of the housing shortage was in sight and that by the end of 1973 we should have a margin of about 1 million more houses than households. This, of


course, is good political stuff. I do not condemn party politics in housing, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. Without party competition, we should not have achieved the success which both parties have achieved over the past few years. Of course, this sort of statement about a surplus of 1 million in 1973 gets the Government out of their immediate difficulties of dropping 100,000 houses a year from the promised target and probably provides a stick with which to beat the Conservative Government which will inevitably be in office in 1973.
Having regard to the demolitions and the wastage of houses, the stock cannot possibly increase by that figure over five years. The net increase is only 300,000 a year, if one builds 400,000 a year and takes into account demolitions and wastage. And 120,000 new families come on to the list for houses each year. When that is totted up, it only leaves 900,000 in those five years—not even one million—if every local authority were told not to fill any of those houses from its present waiting list.
So it is impossible. If the Government really are trying to operate their housing programme on the basis of a one million surplus in 1973, the Bill and the rest of their housing programme will fail—

Mr. Greenwood: The hon. Gentleman is being less than fair to the Minister for Planning and Land. He did not quote that part of my right hon. Friend's speech in which he went on to say:
Of course, local housing shortages are bound to persist, particularly in London, and more than 1 million slums will have to be cleared. But the crude national housing shortage should then be over … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1969; Vol. 777, c. 625.]

Mr. Page: I do not think that the crude national shortage—whatever that may mean—will then be over: there will not be this surplus of 1 million, even on the figures which I gave. But they are worse. All the expenditure under the Bill is to be taken into account against the total housing expenditure. The number of new houses will thereby be reduced still further. It is impossible to reach that 1 million surplus in five years. This is one of the worrying things about the Bill. It warns us that we will have a further reduction in the building of new houses.
At least, that is how I read that paragraph of the Explanatory Memorandum on page xiii, which says:
It is estimated that public expenditure in consequence of the Bill … will be approaching £40 million annually by 1972–73. This expenditure will be contained within a total of public investment in housing at about the level it has now reached …
If that means anything at all, it means that we are to lose £40 million expenditure on new housing. The Bill is not something additional to the housing programme, as it should be and as I hoped when I first read it. It is something to be taken out of the general housing programme if we are to believe that paragraph.
The Government have probably gone wrong in saying that there will be 1 million more houses than households by 1973 because they have fallen into the trap of the definition of "a household". In Ministry documents the definition is:
A household comprises one person living alone or a group of people living at the same address having meals prepared together and with common housekeeping.
That cuts out all the in-laws living with their parents and waiting to find a house, and all the elderly people living with their married daughter or married son and waiting for an elderly person's flat or bungalow. How many tens of thousands of those are there? They are not taken into account when the Government speak of 1 million more houses than households.
I repeat that what is certain is that the Government will never make a success of the Bill if they believe that there will be that surplus in housing in the short period of five years. Perhaps their complacent outlook explains the lack of imagination in the Bill. It is a patchwork upon a system which has failed up to the present. It has failed through what I thought the Local Government Chronicle expressed rather nicely:
Apathy, ignorance or lack of incentive.
If the incentive were there, the apathy and ignorance would soon disappear. This is what we should hope for from the Bill.
Discretionary grants originated in the Labour Government's legislation in 1949 and standard grants in the Conservative Government's legislation in 1964, and on


both sides we are only too painfully aware that neither party when in power has achieved the success that it hoped to achieve from those Measures.
I do not go so far as to say that the Bill in another dose of the very same medicine which made the patient ill, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said, but if we go on just patching up the system we shall not achieve any more success than previously. The Bill not only just patches it up, but increases its complexities. That is a very great disincentive. Take Part I, for example. It continues the system of discretionary grants and standard grants, but adds two more to them, a discretionary conversion grant and a multiple-occupation grant. I wonder whether we need all these divisions and distinctions between the various grants. The urgent job is to persuade owners of dwellings to take advantage of the grants, and they will not do so if they have to cut through a jungle of legislation to find their rights.
I wondered whether it would be more in keeping with the modern attitude towards local government merely to say, "Grants shall be payable by local authorities for repairs, replacements and improvements and for the provision of dwellings by conversion, limited to half the cost or £1,000, whichever is the greater" with an appeal perhaps against refusal "to an inspector appointed by the local authority who will recommend to the local authority". Then one could merely set out the things to which the local authority should have regard when making a grant.
We have, I think, to find a simple system—not a statutory tangle—of discretion to local authorities as they have in town planning, house building, provision of open spaces and many other spheres. After all, the Minister would have plenty of indirect control to ensure that local authorities were taking advantage of the terms of a discretion of that sort.
I am sure that the complexities of the Bill will be an obstacle to its success. Even in Part II the general improvement area scheme is a grafting of an additional procedure on to an existing procedure, and that existing procedure has not yet

achieved its object. If the plan for general improvement areas is really successful—and I sincerely hope it will be—I wonder whether we still need the clearance area procedure.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, North raised the point of the overlap or confusion between general improvement areas and clearance areas. The general improvement area plus compulsory purchase could achieve everything, better than the clearance order can achieve it now and with greater flexibility. I think that is a subject that we might consider at a later stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) questioned whether the allowance was sufficient. This, again, needs careful consideration, because we do not want to spoil the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar if we have got a good scheme in this idea of the general improvement area.
Then we come to Part III—what I would call the Alice in Wonderland part, or what my hon. Friend the Member for Poole would perhaps call the Wapentakes of Magna Carta, or something. It is not wonderland because it sets out to convert controlled tenancies to regulated tenancies, although that is something of a wonder coming from the present Government. As the Minister said, the intention here is that there should be a fair rent for a decent house with basic amenities, which is kept in good repair.
I think everyone, other than perhaps the hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman), realises that the shortage and the decay of houses to let has been due to control or the threat of control. If it is right to make this conversion from controlled to regulated tenancies, it cannot be right to delay its operation for so long. This is the wonderland part of it, that anyone could think that the carrot of this conversion from controlled tenancies to regulated tenancies really will be an incentive if someone has to wait between five and eight years to receive a fair rent from it.
I worked out a sort of timetable for the case of a man who read the White Paper in April, 1968, in which he was told "You put your property in good order; take a grant for it, and you will have a fair rent". We assume that he went off, got his grant and has just completed the improvements. What will happen to him now? He will not get that


fair rent. He might think he will get it when the Bill goes through in July. He puts in his application for a qualification certificate. He may get it by the end of the year. Then he will find that the rateable value of his property delays him getting a regulated rent fixed for another two Christmases—say, 1st January, 1972.
So then, in 1972, he applies for a fair rent. How long will it take him to get that on the books of the rent officer?—three months or perhaps 12 months. When he does so, he gets one-fifth for the first year, two-fifths for the next year, and so on for five years. It is 1976 or 1977 before he gets a full return. Anybody asked to invest in improvements of this sort would laugh the Minister out of court. We must get this right in the later stages of the Bill if it is to be any incentive to carry out improvements.
Now I come to the subject of compensation on acquisition of houses within a clearance area. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, North said, we have been waiting for this for a long time. Unfortunately, it does not clear up much of the confusion. In fact, I think it puts even more confusion into this subject. There is no justification, other than pure prejudice, for restricting market value compensation to owner-occupiers.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Why did your party do it in the 1955 Act?

Mr. Speaker: Order. My party did not do anything.

Mr. Page: I will restrict my remarks to this Measure, although I would like to discuss the history of the matter. The hon. Gentleman may remember that I have always held this view, even if my party did not at that time.
There is no justification, certainly not in this case, for making a distinction between the owner-occupier and the man who has let the house he owns. Both have property which is being taken from them for the benefit of the community; for the clearance of the area and for the building of new houses. One might say that the landlord is more entitled to market value compensation because the owner-occupier is given another home and is assured of alternative accommodation by the local council.
Nor is there any justification for dividing owner-occupiers and other owners into two categories by reason of the date of the White Paper. This is not a case of somebody being able to jump the gun between the date of the White Paper and the date of the Measure becoming operative. It has become an obsession with this Government to use White Papers to mark the coming into force of legislation. One can appreciate the need for that when there is some danger of people taking advantage of what is said in a White Paper and, based on what they have been told in the document, taking action before the legislation becomes operative. But that cannot apply in this case.
This is perpetuating the bitterness of which my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) spoke. Many people will go on feeling that they have been cheated, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, North pointed out. How did the Minister think up this stupid niggle of who should be paid compensation and who should be cheated? I hope that he will amend this provision at a later stage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) said that we would be constructive in Committee. The speeches made tonight have shown how constructive hon. Members can be in considering a Measure of this kind and it is obvious that the Committee stage will take a considerable time, certainly a few weeks.
This brings me to the question of Clause 78. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester made an offer earlier. He asked for this Clause to be taken out of the Bill and put in a small Measure, in which case, he said, we would pass it on the nod. I wish to make it clear that Clause 78 does not go all the way to solving the problems which the Leasehold Reform Act set up in thise sphere. There are many properties, particularly in Kensington, North London, Northolt and some in the North-West where the ground rent, apart from services, is more than two-thirds the rateable value. These properties have changed hands at a premium in the past.
Will the Government now deprive the existing owners and bring down the axe saying, "We know you paid £2,000 for this property a few years ago. You must not recover that money when you sell


it"? I am not quoting hypothetical cases. I know of instances where, leaving aside the question of services, the clear ground rent is over two-thirds the rateable value. These little houses were bought for £2,000 and the owners cannot now recover that if they sell.
The other mistake in the Clause—and I think that it is only a mistake—is that it is only retrospective to the consolidation Rent Act, 1968, and not to the mistake in the Leasehold Reform Act, 1967. Properties have changed hands between the two Acts. I hope that the Minister will accept our offer so that we can get this provision through and allow the market to work again for long leasehold flats.
In general, I hope that we, as the Opposition, will be able to improve the Bill. I hope, even more, that we shall have the opportunity soon, as a Government, to overhaul the whole system and to make it an effective system in itself, as an addition to a full housing programme and not, as this Bill has been put forward, as a substitute for part of the housing programme.

1.0 a.m.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. George Thomas): The debate has been, as the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said, well informed, appreciative of the problem and sympathetic to the needs of the people living in unfit properties. I have been very interested in the constructive line that most hon. Members have taken.
The hon. Gentleman has once again invited Her Majesty's Government to add many millions of pounds a year to public expenditure. I find it something of a humbug to be lectured from the benches opposite about controlling public expenditure while, at every possible opportunity, being asked by them to add millions of pounds to it.
There is, of course, a serious inconsistency in the arguments which the hon. Gentleman used. He went on to talk about compensation terms and said, "Who shall be compensated and who shall be cheated?" If people are cheated it is under the terms of the legislation which his own party put on the Statute Book in 1957. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was then a junior Minister at the

Ministry of Housing and Local Government.

Mr. Graham Page: The Secretary of State knows that compensation is now paid under Statutes passed by the present Government. They had the opportunity to correct it.

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman cannot escape the fact that the real hardship caused by the 1957 Act has had to be cleared up by this Administration.
I hope to answer a great many questions which have been raised, but I feel, without injustice to the House, that I cannot answer them all tonight. I shall go with care through the OFFICIAL REPORT and will communicate to hon. Members my answers to those questions which I cannot deal with now.
It has been proved once again for us that few debates are likely to cause deeper feeling than one on the housing of our people. A basic human right for all our citizens is that they shall live in houses with modern, civilised amenities. This right has been denied for far too long to a great many in our community. The saving and improvement of our older houses and our older housing areas is not only economic sense; it is much more than that. When we are dealing with older people, with people who have formed themselves into a closely-knit community, something is destroyed when we move them from their friendly surroundings to an area where they are completely strange.
Some of my hon. Friends underestimate what it means to people to have improvements made to their homes. I do not suppose that I am the only Member who, for a very great part of his life, lived in a house without a bathroom. My father was a miner; and miners' houses needed bathrooms more than any, but they did not have them in the Rhondda Valley. I had been teaching for quite a while before we were able to put in a bathroom. I know the thrill that comes to people who have been living in a house without these amenities when they are eventually provided, and that is what some of my hon. Friends forget.
Some of my hon. Friends who have talked a lot about the fact that people


will have to pay for having improved amenities underestimate the life of people who live in these conditions which not one of us would be willing to accept for his own family.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am sure that my right hon. Friend has misunderstood the point that many of us have been making. We understand the deep appreciation when these amenities are provided; but we do not want to see people robbed when they are provided.

Mr. Thomas: Neither do the Government. My hon. Friend must not think that he has a monopoly of concern for people or the rent they pay. He must do justice to the proposals we have submitted to the House. I believe that the Bill offers a greater hope to people living in unfit houses, or houses which could be improved, than any single Measure which has yet come before the House. I shall deal with the issues which my hon. Friends have raised. I know their deep sincerity and their burning concern for these people. I ask them only to believe that we share it.
I want to give a few facts about Welsh housing. In a moving and informed speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands) reminded us of some of our major problems. More than half of all the houses in Wales were built before 1919. More than 50 per cent. of them are owner-occupied. The Welsh take a particular pride in home ownership, as I know. People in other parts of these islands do, but it is a special characteristic of the industrial valleys of Wales and more than 70 per cent. to 80 per cent. in the Rhondda, Aberdare and Merthyr Valleys is common. In these areas the proportion of people who have gone in for their own homes, to have security, is much higher than average.
While it is true that in Wales one family in every three is living in a lovely post-war house, with modern amenities, one family in three is living in older property. Almost one-third of the housing stock lacks at least one of the basic amenities—an internal lavatory, a fixed bath, a washbasin, or hot and cold water. In the mining valleys of South Wales, nearly two-thirds of the houses were built before 1919, and a great many date back to the 19th century.
Here in these valleys, 45 per cent. of the houses lack at least one of the basic amenities. Yet the great majority of these houses are fit houses, lacking the necessities which we all accept ought to be in the homes of our people. They are fit houses built at a time when little consideration was given to the surroundings in which people lived. Both sides of the House ever since the war have concentrated their main attention on the building of new houses. It has been our main task, and an essential one. All the time, while we have been doing this, sometimes due to neglect, sometimes due to lack of resources, thousands of houses that could have been protected and maintained have been allowed to fall into slum condition. Without relaxing in the provision of new houses where they are needed, it is essential that we give greater care now to the improvement of these older properties.
The House has, understandably given a great welcome to the new grants system, with the exception of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, Southwest, who made a colourful speech, a speech that has not been supported by his own Front Bench—

Mr. Lubbock: He is on another planet.

Mr. Thomas: —or anyone else. The right hon. Gentleman did not bring a new idea to the House. There was nothing novel in what he said, when he wanted a free market. This is not something that has not happened before. The right hon. Gentleman ought to read Dickens, and he would know the results of the free market in houses.

Mr. Powell: There was then a free market in everything else, and look how everything else has improved.

Mr. Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman wants to take us back to an age that we are glad to forget. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman points up there. He is never likely to get up there—and if he does he would not be happy, because I understand that there is no discrimination up there.
The new emphasis on environmental improvement provides a veritable charter for the restoration of our neglected industrial areas. This will be particularly true in the valleys of South Wales, whose


scenery, prior to the Industrial Revolution, rivalled that of the Wye Valley today. Local authorities will now be able to remove the scars that industry has left, and improve whole areas, thus providing an incentive for those who live within the area to improve their property, too.
I had better answer some of the questions that I have been asked. It is only my concern for the House which takes me from the speech which I have prepared. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) impressed me considerably. I have never before had the pleasure and privilege of hearing him in a restrained manner. He was restrained tonight. Of course, he has made the maximum mischief, turning the screw for my hon. Friends. I thought that he did it very well. The hon. Gentleman made a very able and provocative speech—provocative not to us. He set out to provoke other people and they were foolish enough to be provoked.
The hon. Member made an interesting and generous offer on behalf of his party. To take Clause 78 out of the Bill is something of a hostage to fortune, but we will certainly give the most careful consideration to what he suggested. If we did that, without being unkind, it would be an improvement on the Measure which the hon. Member for Crosby introduced, because although it is similar, there are important differences, of which the hon. Member, who is a skilful debater and an experienced Member of the House, is well aware.

Mr. John Fraser: This is a real problem. I wonder whether the Front Bench could organise the Committee so that Clause 78 comes on at the beginning rather than at the end.

Mr. Thomas: I have enough problems without trying to do the work of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House or, indeed, of the Whips or anybody else concerned in this matter.
The hon. Member for Worcester referred to the difficulty caused by local authority mortgage finance not being as generous this year; indeed, hon. Members on both sides have referred to this fact. We are limited, it is true, in the extent to which public expenditure may be allowed under present conditions. The

economic situation has made it necessary to restrict local authority mortgage finance, but the House should remember the local authority financing of house purchase is a very small part of the total of mortgage financing. Within the funds that are available, my right hon. Friend and I have impressed upon local authorities the need to concentrate their resources on older houses.
I turn to the question of compensation, a big question. First, there is the question of compensation in clearance areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North reminded me of the very grievous situation in my own constituency in the Riverside Ward of Cardiff, where considerable hardship was caused by the compensation which was paid when people had to leave their homes. He also reminded me that there are in the pipeline other cases in which they will not get the new rate of compensation, whereas they will see their neighbours get it. I realise that this is a problem and it is a very difficult one. Wherever we put the dividing date, there would be hardship.
Of course, local authorities had done their budgeting on the basis of the old rate of compensation; only when the White Paper came out were they aware of the new rates of compensation for which they would be liable. This is a difficulty which we cannot see our way to overcome. We want to get the maximum number of people able to benefit from our proposals, because local authorities have been reluctant to enter on clearance schemes because of the hardship they knew would be caused. An hon. Member asked: why not give it to the landlord as well as to the owner-occupier? There is a world of difference between the landlord and the owner-occupier in a case like this. The owner-occupier has to go elsewhere. He may not want to go to a local authority house.
As one hon. Member opposite said, we do not want to be a nation of council house dwellers. However, for council houses in Cardiff there is great competition. Wherever I have been I have found many people anxious to get council houses. But there are people who do not wish to have council houses, and who have to provide themselves with their homes and the landlords are not faced


with that problem. The landlord is certainly getting benefits here he did not get before. He will get much greater benefit for a well maintained house and in many parts of the country it will be roughly equivalent to the compensation he would have been given had he been an owner-occupier. In addition, there is the new benefit of compensation if a house is partly well maintained, either inside or outside.
I am sorry that I cannot refer to all the speeches of all hon. Members who have taken part in what has been a good debate, but I want now to turn to the question which agitates my hon. Friend—controlled houses becoming regulated houses. I can understand why it agitates him. If we want to get improvements to these older properties there must be an inducement and an incentive. There is no doubt about it. The 12½ per cent. has not proved adequate to induce landlords to undertake improvements. That is why we have to take these further steps.
But what about allowing the tenant to buy the house? This is an attractive proposal. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) said it is a proposal he did not want to turn down out of hand. Nor does any one of us. Let us look at what the difficulties are, because in this there are some very real human problems. A man does not lose his human rights because he is a landlord. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We have never believed that a man loses his human qualities because he is a landlord, but some landlords lack human qualities. How they can rest at night, knowing the condition under which some of their tenants live, amazes me.
But as to buying the house, my right hon. Friend gave a figure, that of 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. of the landlords owning either one or two houses. Many people buy a house to which they hope to retire, a house in a place they like. If a person keeps it with all the amenities are we to say to him, "You cannot go there because you will have to sell the house whether you want to or not"? There are lots of problems to be considered here, I say to my hon. Friends, who, I know, do not want to cause injustice while trying to cure injustice. There are people who have a house where a son or

daughter may be able to come and live with the old folk; or who want the house to be near a son or daughter. Are we to say to them, "Because the house is in good condition you have to sell it"? I say to my hon. Friends that, attractive as the proposition is, it is one which has to be weighed very carefully indeed.
I think that I may with truth say that after this debate it is clear that there will be an interesting Committee stage. I hope that in giving a Second Reading to the Bill the House will realise that it is starting on its journey a Bill which is one of the best which the House has produced.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

HOUSING [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for grants by local authorities and contributions out of moneys provided by Parliament towards the cost of providing dwellings by conversion or of improving dwellings and houses; to confer powers on local authorities to improve living conditions by improving the amenities of areas or of dwellings therein; and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise:—
(1) The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of contributions to local authorities development corporations and the Commission for the New Towns towards the cost incurred by them for the purpose of providing dwellings by the conversion of houses or other buildings or of improving dwellings;
(b) of contributions to local authorities in respect of arrangements made by them with housing associations for the like purposes;
(c) of contributions to local authorities in respect of grants made by them to other persons towards costs incurred for the like purposes or for the purpose of providing houses in multiple occupation with certain amenities.

(2) The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of contributions to local authorities towards so much of any expenses incurred by them, or treated under the Act as incurred by them, for the purpose of the improvement of the amenities of certain areas or of dwellings therein as may be approved by a Minister of the Crown.


(3) The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses of a Government department which are attributable to the provisions of the Act for making payments in respect of interests in houses purchased at site value or vacated.
(4) Any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under the provisions of section 60 of the Housing Act 1957 or Schedule 2 to that Act, as applied by Schedule 2 to the Land Compensation Act 1961 as amended, which is attributable to any amendment or extension of those provisions by the Act of the present Session.
(5) Any increase attributable to the Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under section 40(7) of the Rent Act 1968.
(6) Any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of rate support grants which may arise from the inclusion, in the expenditure relevant to the fixing of the aggregate amount of those grants, of expenditure under the Act.
(7) The payment of any sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. MacColl.]

RAILWAYS (NETWORK FOR DEVELOPMENT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Concannon.]

1.27 a.m.

Mr. Tom Bradley: The subject I am raising tonight, the size and shape of the British Railways network, has been a matter of great public interest and controversy since the first nationalisation statute of 1947. Naturally, it is a matter of intense interest, particularly to railwaymen whose livelihood depends on a sensible, stable and successful structure.
There have always been those who would reduce the railways network to a mere rump. There are others who advocate the retention of all railway lines however out-dated they may be. In the middle group are people such as myself who accept that there must be some contraction of the existing network because we recognise that some lines—in fact, many lines—do not pay, will never pay, and which have little or no social significance. Nevertheless, I believe that a strong case can be made for a sizeable network which, under enlightened managerial direction, could not only be socially useful, but could also become financially viable.
Because the system had already contracted from 19,000 route miles at the end of 1956 to about 13,000 route miles by the end of 1966, many people had their hopes raised when, in March, 1967, there was published a document entitled "British Railways Network for Development Map". It was issued jointly by the then Minister of Transport and the British Railways Board, and it outlined a system of at least 11,000 route miles for development. The Minister acknowledged his responsibility for many un-remunerative lines within this basic network.
Those of us with close ties with the railway industry knew that, at the time that this map was published, there was in existence a second Beeching Report, which had been prepared but had never been published. It was based purely on commercial considerations and involved a drastic reduction of route mileage to a network of some 8,000 route miles. The new map, then, was the Government's alternative to the unpublished proposals, but it represented at once at least a 40 per cent. improvement.
The map took into account economic and social needs as well as commercial factors, and the fact that it was agreed at a time of economic squeeze and a big railways' deficit in 1966 showed just how strong the Government's commitment was. It deserved its warm welcome as an intention to bring stability into the system.
The House will recall that the map divided the existing route mileage into three categories, each marked differently. First, the lines that, on existing evidence, were not to be included in the basic network were marked in grey on the map. Second, freight lines which were to be included were marked in a thin black line. Third, freight and passenger lines or passenger only lines which were to be included in the basic network were marked in thick black lines. These latter lines were those which were intended to be retained and developed.
Since the publication of the map in March, 1967, a number of grey lines have been closed; for example, Kings Lynn to Dereham. Other lines are going through the closure machinery at the present time. While this is disappointing, many of us always accepted what was made clear by the Government at


the time, that the future of grey lines was uncertain. We have always faced that fact. However, one felt sure that at least those lines marked in thick black would remain for some time.
After all, in a joint foreward to the map, the Minister of Transport and the then Chairman of the British Railways Board said:
This map illustrates the basic railway network which the Government and the British Railways Board have decided should be retained and developed so that the railways can play a full part in the country's transport system. … The purpose of this map is to show the stabilised rail network planned to meet social as well as economic and commercial needs. … The best possible use must however be made of the lines which are to continue in being and the network must be developed to enable it to carry the traffic efficiently.
Railwaymen were convinced then that, with this basic network, they could look ahead confidently to a secure future. However, the first indication that the map should be treated with some caution came when the Minister revealed that, in connection with grant aids to loss-making passenger services, the Liskeard—Looe line, in Cornwall, should be retained at its present level only until improvements had been carried out to alternative roads in the vicinity.
This line was marked on the map in black, thus indicating that it was part of the plan to meet social as well as economic needs. There was never any indication that the life of some of the development lines was guaranteed only until certain local road improvements had been completed. Indeed, another line whose future is also to be determined by road improvements, namely, Dingwall to the Kyle of Lochalsh, was marked in grey on the map and, therefore, not, included in the basic network for precisely that reason.
The foreword to the map also implied that passenger lines marked for development would not be closed in the foreseeable future, since it stated:
The future of some of the freight lines would, of course, need to be reconsidered if the source of the traffic disappeared, or if there should be a major change in other circumstances. Similarly, on passenger lines the Board may have to review from time to time the type and level of services. In some cases this may lead to proposals for the closure of individual stations …
My hon. Friend will note that there is no mention there of services included

in the network being withdrawn; only the possibility of closure perhaps so far as individual stations were involved.
The validity of the map was thrown into even greater doubt when the Minister of Transport announced, on 15th November last year, that he had come to the conclusion that no less than 11 passenger lines, which had been included in the map of the basic network for development only 18 months previously, were now so unremunerative and unnecessary that they should not receive a grant as part of his £62 million contribution.
I repeat that I appreciate that the basic network will not, and cannot, remain unchanged for ever, but to be told only 18 months after the publication of the map that the future of a number of lines in it, is in doubt already, must call into question the promises and the assurances made about the future of the railway industry at the time that the map was produced.
What is it that has happened which could not have been foreseen 18 months ago? It is known, for instance, that the Regional Economic Planning Councils were consulted about the proposed network before the map was agreed and that there were additions to the map to meet many of their wishes. Were these councils asked for the comments prior to this revision of policy and did they agree, certainly so far as the 11 services that are now down for closure were concerned?
It is possible that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary may argue that some of the lines which were marked in grey on the network map are to be grant aided. I accept at once that the Minister of Transport stressed that lines marked in grey would not necessarily be closed. We understood that. To that extent the policy of grant aiding certain of these grey lines is not inconsistent with declared Government policy. I would emphasise, however, that the then Minister of Transport who produced the map made it clear at the time that if any grey lines were retained they would be in addition to the basic routes marked in black. It was for that reason that no exact figure was given for the total of route mileage for development, but a figure of 11,000 to 12,000 miles was mentioned.
So I return to what I consider is a departure from a principle: the non-development of black lines. Can it be that the cost of operating the 11 services which I have mentioned has gone up appreciably since it was decided to include them in the map for development? If that is the case, will my hon. Friend say why? If costs are more or less the same, will he give the justification for not grant-aiding these services? How many more, and which, black lines are to come under the hammer? What importance can we now attach to the map?
Are my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend satisfied with the system used by British Railways in their costing methods, in their calculations? I have had occasion previously in transport debates to draw the Minister's attention to suspect British Railways' costings. It is certain that under the present management there will be very little effort, no incentive at all, to develop lines on their own initiative if they are expecting grants from the Government. If the Government are not to give grants for lines which are socially necessary, and which were marked in black on the map for development, it is almost certain that the railways will allow them to fall into disuse.
These are disturbing features. I should welcome my hon. Friend's assurance that the 1967 network map is still relevant, that he agrees that there is a need for a substantial railways system, and that the cases which I have mentioned do not represent the start of a reversal of established policy.

1.41 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Neil Carmichael): The subject of the future of the railway system always exercises a unique fascination, both for Members of the House, and for the many users of the railways. I am aware of the particularly knowledgeable interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley) in the whole problem of the future of the railways. I sympathise with the apprehension which may have been aroused by recent announcements about my right hon. Friend's decision on the payment of grant for unremunerative railway passenger

services, and I am glad to have this opportunity to dispel any doubts about the Government's intention to maintain an extensive and stabilised railway system.
I entirely understand that there is concern that 11 services operating over lines shown as thick black on the 1967 Network for Development Map are not to receive a grant under the new powers taken in the Transport Act, 1968. I want to reassure the House as to the overall validity of the map, while, at the same time, pointing out that a realistic outlook must, of necessity, involve an appreciation that no railway network can remain unchanged for ever.
The House will, of course, recall the reasons which led to the publication of the network map. In the 1966 White Paper on Transport Policy, Cmnd. 3057, the Government said that, to restore stability to the industry, they had decided that it was essential to determine the general shape and size of the system.
It was made clear that the Government were convinced that the country's transport system must include a substantial railway network for the foreseeable future. The immediate result was the publication of the network map, which was a joint exercise by the then Chairman of the Board and my right hon. Friend's predecessor. The views of the Regional Economic Planning Councils, of other Government Departments, and of the railway unions were also taken into account. The policy behind the map remains entirely valid, but our thinking about the finances of the railway system, and our knowledge of the financial, social, and economic factors affecting individual services have, of course, developed very greatly over the past two years.
In particular, the Government have had the benefit of a comprehensive report by the Joint Steering Group which was published as the Annex to the White Paper on Railway Policy of November, 1967. Specifically, the group made recommendations about the methods of calculating, paying and controlling grants for unremunerative railway passenger services in accordance with the policy first outlined in the 1966 White Paper.
The Government accepted these recommendations, and as a result, for the first


time, detailed information is now available about the full long-term costs of operating individual unremunerative railway services. As was explained in the 1967 White Paper, it is an essential part of the new policy for the railways that loss-making passenger services should be separately identified and costed, and a decision taken whether the social or economic benefits to be obtained from the operation of a particular service justify the cost of continuing it at the taxpayers' expense. Section 39 of the Transport Act requires my right hon. Friend to consider each case on its individual merits before deciding whether or not it meets the three requirements laid down in subsection (1).
It was as a result of this detailed and individual consideration of services that my right hon. Friend came to the tentative conclusion that grants should not be paid in the limited number of cases referred to in his announcement of last November. He made it clear, however, that where statutory closure proceedings are involved under the provisions of the Transport Act, 1962, he would not take a final decision about the future of the services in question until after a thorough examination has been made of all relevant social and economic circumstances, including the advice he receives from the transport users' consultative committee on any hardship aspects.
It is important to see these decisions in their proper perspective. Out of a total of about 250 services in respect of which the Railways Board made applications for grant, only 11 are currently the subject of closure proceedings before final decisions are made on whether or not to grant-aid them. It is true that all these services operate over lines which are shown as thick black on the network map, but, as my right hon. Friend's statement of 15th November indicated, substantial Exchequer subventions would be needed to maintain them, and this raises doubts whether they would offer real value for money.
On the other hand, there are many other services which are at present being grant-aided and which operate over lines shown as grey and thin black on the map. To be more precise, and to put the matter into perspective, about 120 miles out of

about 8,000 of thick black lines are now being proposed for closure as a result of my right hon. Friend's announcement last November, and 500 or so miles of grey or thin black line will continue for the time being to carry grant-aided services, as a result of deliberate decisions to pay grant instead of proposing them for closure or to refuse consent to closure after publication. Thus, the likely net effect of the decisions recently taken on the mileage of the system as a whole is to add nearly 400 miles to what was originally intended.
I am most anxious that all of us—the Government, the House, the Railways Board, the unions and the public—should continue to regard the 1967 map as portraying the kind of basic railway network which it remains our policy to maintain. The Government firmly believe that the railways have a vital part to play in the transport system of the country. This does not mean that no further changes are possible in respect of individual services.
I am not in a position to give assurances tonight about the future of particular lines since, as explained in my right hon. Friend's announcement of 15th November, in many cases we have not been able to consider services in sufficient detail to take long-term decisions, and my right hon. Friend has, under section 39 of the 1968 Act, the specific statutory responsibility to take a decision on the case for grant for each service on its merits. But this in no way detracts from the Government's view that there is an essential long-term need for a railway system.
I hope that these assurances will serve to satisfy the House that the action which has been proposed and may be proposed in a handful of particular cases does not represent any radical departure from the policy of a stabilised network of which the 1967 map was the practical expression.
The country will need an extensive railway network for a long time to come, and the Government intend to see that this need is fully met.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Two o'clock.